Search chores by summary text to find unscheduled and template chores that standard date-range lists cannot return.
Search chores (incl. unscheduled/template chores the date-range list can't return).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| frameId | No | ||
| search_query | Yes | Text to search chore summaries. | |
| include_up_for_grabs | No | ||
| ended_chore_lookback_days | No | How many days back to include ended chores. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that this search includes unscheduled/template chores, which is a behavioral scope beyond the tool name and beyond what annotations convey.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and the key differentiator in minimal words.
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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It explains the scope advantage over the date-range list but does not address filtering parameters, limits, frame context, or return behavior. Some of this is left to the partially described schema, leaving gaps.
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 only 40%, with limit, frameId, and include_up_for_grabs undocumented. The description does not compensate for this gap; the parenthetical hint about unscheduled/template chores loosely maps to include_up_for_grabs but is not explicit. Parameter meaning is largely left to schema inference.
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') and resource ('chores'), and immediately defines the tool's scope with 'incl. unscheduled/template chores the date-range list can't return.' This clearly differentiates it from the related list_chores tool even without naming it explicitly.
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 when to use this tool: when you need unscheduled/template chores that the date-range list cannot return. It does not name the alternative outright or provide explicit when-not guidance, but the contrast with the date-range list is a clear usage signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.