margins-mcp

by cflorczyk9

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Local

search_vault

Read-only

Search full-text and filenames across the vault. Returns top matching files with paths and snippets.

Instructions

Full-text + filename search across the Margins vault. Returns top hits with path and snippet.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_vault"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max results to return. Default 10.
`query`	Yes	Search string. Case-insensitive substring.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.15.3Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that results include path and snippet, but lacks details on pagination, ordering, or edge cases. With annotations covering safety, this is minimally adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose and return value. No redundant information, perfectly front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists; description mentions 'top hits with path and snippet' but lacks detail on structure (e.g., fields per hit). For a simple search tool this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool performs 'Full-text + filename search across the Margins vault' and specifies return of 'top hits with path and snippet.' This is a specific verb-resource pair, distinguishing it from generic siblings like 'search'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search' or 'scan_entity_candidates'. The description only states what it does without context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.