search_querySearch Redmine issues, wiki pages, documents, files, and news by project or globally; return ranked results with type, title, and excerpt.
Searches across issues, wiki pages, documents, files, and news. Returns ranked results with type, title, and excerpt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search terms. | |
| limit | No | ||
| scope | No | Project identifier to scope the search to ("all" for global). | |
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape (ranked results with type, title, excerpt), but says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or auth requirements.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the return format. 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?
For a global search tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and result shape. However, pagination (limit/offset) and result-ranking behavior are left unexplained, and no guidance is given on interacting with the many sibling list/query tools.
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 coverage is 50%: q and scope are documented in the schema, while limit and offset are not. The description's enumeration of searchable domains loosely maps to the scope parameter, but it adds no syntax or meaning for limit/offset, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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 (searches) and enumerates the resources covered (issues, wiki pages, documents, files, news), so an agent immediately understands the scope. There is no competing search tool among the siblings, so differentiation isn't needed, but the description doesn't explicitly claim global coverage vs. filtered alternatives beyond the title.
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 description explains what the tool does but never states when to use it versus alternatives like queries_run or the various *_list tools. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or precondition guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.