Retrieve relevant excerpts and cited sources from indexed technical documents using hybrid vector and keyword (BM25) search.
Busca híbrida (vetorial + BM25 via RRF) no corpus indexado. Retorna trechos e fontes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| top_k | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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 of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a bare 'search' by revealing the hybrid retrieval approach (vector + BM25 via RRF) and specifying that the output contains excerpts and sources. This gives an agent useful expectations about both behavior and returns.
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 dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and retrieval method, then immediately gives the return type. Every word contributes meaningful 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?
For a simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it names the corpus, explains the hybrid mechanism, and states what is returned. It could add usage direction relative to siblings, but that gap is already covered under usage guidelines.
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 needed to compensate, but it does not explain query or top_k. The parameter names and types are self-explanatory enough for a minimal viable call, and the default for top_k is in the schema, but the agent gets no additional semantic guidance from the 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 states a specific operation ('hybrid search') and a clear resource ('the indexed corpus'), and further distinguishes the tool by naming the retrieval mechanism (vector + BM25 via RRF) and the return type (excerpts and sources). This sets it apart from the sibling tools ingest and ask.
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 intended use is implied: search over an indexed corpus. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over ask or ingest, nor any mention of what each sibling is better suited for. The context is reasonably clear but the routing decision is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.