Finds concepts by case-insensitive text query across Open Knowledge Format bundles and returns each match's bundle, file, line, and text for quick reference.
Case-insensitive text search over concepts; each hit is {bundle, file, line, text}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| bundle | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful traits the annotations cannot: case-insensitive matching and the per-hit shape {bundle, file, line, text}. It says nothing about ordering of results, pagination behavior, or result cap.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the matching semantics and return shape come first. It is arguably too terse for a four-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, the description does well to define the hit record, but it omits pagination (limit default 30, offset), bundle scoping, and match ordering — all decisions an agent must make to call this correctly. For a 4-param search tool at 0% schema coverage, this is under-specified.
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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: 'query' is only implied, and 'limit', 'offset', and especially 'bundle' (a domain concept) are never explained. Mentioning 'bundle' inside the hit shape hints it is a scoping dimension but does not state that it filters results.
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 and resource: 'Case-insensitive text search over concepts', which is concrete enough that an agent can distinguish it from list/get/link style siblings. It does not name any sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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 guidance on when to use this over siblings like 'list', 'get', 'links', or 'web', and no mention of prerequisites such as indexing state. The agent must infer that this is the free-text lookup path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.