Retrieve ranked evidence from SignalRank using dense, BM25, or hybrid retrieval, with provenance for each result.
Search SignalRank and return ranked evidence without LLM synthesis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | dense | |
| query | Yes | ||
| top_k | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool does NOT perform LLM synthesis, returning raw ranked evidence. This is valuable. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors like whether it's read-only, rate limits, or what the output structure looks like. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but the description could add more context about the nature of the evidence.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key differentiator. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool has 3 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core purpose and the 'no synthesis' behavior, but doesn't explain the mode parameter or provide guidance on when to use each mode. The output schema covers return values, but the description is incomplete for a tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations.
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 compensate. The description mentions 'ranked evidence' which implies the top_k parameter's purpose, and 'Search' implies the query parameter. However, it doesn't explain the 'mode' parameter (bm25, dense, hybrid) at all. The description adds some meaning but leaves the mode parameter unexplained, which is a significant gap.
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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('SignalRank'), and a key differentiator ('return ranked evidence without LLM synthesis'). This clearly distinguishes it from a typical LLM-based search or synthesis tool. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'SignalRank' is, but the core purpose is clear.
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 implies usage: use this when you want raw ranked evidence, not synthesized answers. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, and there are no sibling tools listed. The 'without LLM synthesis' phrase provides some context but doesn't fully guide an agent on when to choose this over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.