Search documentation for a query in a specified library such as langchain, openai, or llama-index and return relevant text.
Search the latest docs for a given query and library. Supports langchain, openai, and llama-index.
Args: query: The query to search for (e.g. "Chroma DB") library: The library to search in (e.g. "langchain")
Returns: Text from the docs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| library | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes that the tool searches 'latest docs' and returns text, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention potential network dependency, error cases, or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, supported libraries, parameter guidance, and return type. It lacks explicit error handling or formatting details, but these are not critical for this simple search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does so effectively with an Args section providing both meaning and examples for 'query' and 'library', plus listing supported library values in the main description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search the latest docs for a given query and library.' It specifies the resource (docs), the verb (search), and scope (latest), and distinguishes from sibling Chroma DB tools by focusing on doc search for specific libraries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use the tool (when searching docs for langchain, openai, or llama-index) through the list of supported libraries. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, so it doesn't fully meet the 'when-not/alternatives' criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.