Search a CV for a term like a technology, company, or keyword and return the lines where it appears. Useful for locating specific skills or experience.
Pesquisa um termo (tecnologia, empresa, palavra-chave) no CV e devolve as linhas onde aparece.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Termo a procurar, ex.: 'TypeScript' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return form (matching lines), but says nothing about case sensitivity, whether matching is exact or substring, scope across sections, or result limits for a search tool.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action, the accepted term types, and the return value. No filler, though it is short enough that it could have absorbed a routing pointer at no cost.
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 one-parameter read-only search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers action, input categories and return shape. Missing only minor behavioral details like matching semantics.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% (schema already documents 'query' with the 'TypeScript' example). The description's examples (technology, company, keyword) add mild breadth but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 (pesquisa) and resource (no CV) and even describes the output shape (as linhas onde aparece). This differentiates it reasonably from get_cv, which presumably returns the whole document, though it never names that sibling 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?
Usage is implied by the verb 'pesquisa' and the example term categories, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance nor any pointer to get_cv/get_section for retrieving whole content. Nothing misleading, just unstated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.