Find creative-direction guidance across principles, evidence notes, tensions, and checklists, then get result IDs to pass to fetch for details.
Search the always-okay lens (principles, evidence notes, tensions, checklists) for creative-direction guidance. Returns result ids to pass to fetch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations declaring readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description usefully clarifies output behavior (returns result ids, not content) which is not in the annotations. However, it doesn't mention result limits, ranking, or empty-result behavior.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the key output detail. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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?
The description covers what is searched and what is returned (ids for fetch), which is sufficient for basic invocation. But it omits the query parameter semantics and any guidance on scope vs. the many similar sibling retrieval tools, leaving the agent with ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.
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% and the single 'query' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description implies a query-based search but adds no syntax, format, or interpretation guidance for the query parameter, leaving a gap that should be filled given the 0% coverage. Baseline 4 for zero params doesn't apply since there is one param.
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 (Search) and resource (the always-okay lens, enumerating its content types: principles, evidence notes, tensions, checklists) with clearly stated goal (creative-direction guidance). This makes it distinguishable from siblings like search_evidence. However, the scope overlap with get_principle, list_tensions, and get_checklist isn't addressed.
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?
Implies usage via 'Returns result ids to pass to `fetch`' which hints at a two-stage workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or when to choose this over siblings like search_evidence or get_principle. The agent must infer the intended workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.