search_entries_toolSearch RSS/Atom feed entries by title or content using full-text queries to locate relevant articles quickly.
Full-text search across entry titles and content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-500, default: 50) | |
| query | Yes | Search query (FTS5 syntax supported) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the search spans titles and content, but says nothing about result ordering, ranking, or how the limit interacts with total matches.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope constraint (titles and content) comes immediately after the verb. Nothing is wasted or buried.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the readOnlyHint covers safety. For a search tool, though, the description omits ranking/ordering behavior and the relationship between the limit and total result count, which an agent calling this repeatedly would benefit from knowing.
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% – both parameters are documented in the schema, including FTS5 syntax support and the 1-500 limit range. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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+resource (full-text search across entries) and narrows the searchable fields to titles and content, which is more than the name alone conveys. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like list_entries_tool or read_entry_tool, so an agent must infer the distinction from the verb '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?
No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-tool guidance is given. The description never mentions list_entries_tool (enumeration) or read_entry_tool (fetch a single entry), leaving the agent to infer routing from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.