lager_search_capabilitiesFind the correct warehouse tool before making a call. Search available capabilities by query to identify the right action.
Find det rigtige værktøj før første kald.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about what a query matches, how results are ranked or returned, or the effect of an empty query.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, so it is structurally clean. But it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — brevity here comes at the cost of information.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a search returns (tool names? schemas? capability descriptions?) and how to use the query. For a discovery/meta tool with 0% parameter documentation, one tagline sentence leaves the agent guessing.
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% for both parameters, and the description says nothing about 'query' (search semantics, matching behavior) or 'limit' (default 20, max 50). It entirely fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.
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 name and title indicate a search over the lager MCP's own capabilities, and the description's phrase 'find det rigtige værktøj' (find the right tool) loosely conveys a tool-discovery purpose. However, the description itself never says it searches the MCP's tool catalog or returns tool metadata; an agent must infer that from the name/title alone.
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?
'Før første kald' (before the first call) hints at timing, but no explicit when-to-use conditions, no mention of when it is unnecessary, and no alternatives are named. It stops short of real guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.