JSONPlaceholder MCP Server

search_posts

Search posts by title or body content to find relevant information in the JSONPlaceholder testing environment.

Instructions

Search posts by title or body content

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_posts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jan 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't cover important aspects such as whether the search is case-sensitive, supports partial matches, returns paginated results, or has rate limits, which are critical for an agent to use it effectively.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, return values, or error handling, which are essential for a search operation. The minimal information provided doesn't suffice for effective agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely mentions 'title or body content' without detailing the 'query' parameter's format, syntax, or examples. This leaves the parameter's meaning unclear beyond the basic schema type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('posts') with the search criteria ('by title or body content'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_posts', which might retrieve posts differently (e.g., by ID or all posts).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_posts' or other sibling tools. It lacks context about scenarios where searching by content is preferred over other retrieval methods, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server