searchRetrieve bilingual Earth-Moon space glossary entries by Chinese or English keyword, returning titles, categories, page links, and definition summaries to answer 'what is X' questions.
按关键词检索地月空间入门指南的术语词典，返回词条标题、英文名、分类、页面链接与定义摘要。适合回答“什么是 X”这类问题。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回条数，默认 5 | |
| query | Yes | 检索词，中文或英文均可，例如 晕轨道、NRHO、Halo Orbit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does useful work by enumerating the returned fields (标题、英文名、分类、链接、定义摘要) and constraining the corpus to the guide's glossary, but it says nothing about match behavior (fuzzy vs exact, ranking) or paging beyond the schema's limit field.
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?
Two short sentences: the retrieval behavior and return shape come first, then the use case. No filler, no repetition of the title.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact fields returned, and it scopes the corpus. The remaining gap is sibling routing (`search` vs `get`), which matters for a two-tool server.
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 100% and both params are documented there, including Chinese/English examples for `query` and a default of 5 for `limit`. The description only restates 'keyword' without adding syntax, matching rules, or limit trade-offs, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (按关键词检索) and a scoped resource (地月空间入门指南的术语词典), plus what is returned. It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling `get`, so the agent must infer that `get` is for direct lookup rather than keyword search.
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 closing line gives one positive usage cue (适合回答“什么是 X”这类问题), which implies the retrieval use case. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of the `get` alternative for known identifiers or full entries, and no note on how many results to request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.