LegendKeeper MCP

search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find text across LegendKeeper resource names, aliases, and page content; get ranked passages with IDs, paths, and tags.

Instructions

Full-text search across resource names, aliases and document content (best match first). Returns ids, paths, tags and the matching passage.

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"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes	Words to find in names, aliases and page text.
`project`	No	Configured project (world) name. Omit to use the default project; see list_projects.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing relevance ordering ('best match first') and the return payload (ids, paths, tags, matching passage), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the search scope and ordering front-loaded and the return shape following. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description helpfully covers the return fields and the ranking order. The remaining gap is the limit parameter, which is undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving result-count behavior unstated.

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 67%, in the middle band. The description's 'names, aliases and document content' loosely mirrors the query parameter's schema text ('names, aliases and page text') but adds nothing about limit's default/cap or the project scoping beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Full-text search') and the exact fields searched (names, aliases, document content), which distinguishes it from retrieval siblings like get_resource and browse_tree. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the scope statement (find things when you don't know the id), and the project parameter description routes to list_projects for project discovery. However, it never states when to prefer search over browse_tree, get_resource, or read_document, nor any when-not conditions.

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