blind-mcp

find

Search a company's Blind discussions by specific keyword to retrieve matching posts, returning an empty result when no threads match.

Instructions

Find a company's posts about one keyword.

This is how you search Blind. The company topic path accepts any keyword, so find("Intuit", "maternity") returns exactly the maternity threads -- which paging the main listing will not surface, since they can be years deep. Prefer one distinctive noun ("maternity", "rto", "refresher"); vague words like "policy" match hundreds of loosely-related posts.

Returns no posts when nothing matches, rather than falling back to the generic listing, so an empty result is a real answer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`company`	Yes
`keyword`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses exact-match behavior on the topic path, the no-fallback empty-result semantics, and the risk of vague keywords, which are non-obvious and useful.

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 front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, followed by only behaviorally relevant details. Every sentence adds information (example, keyword guidance, empty-result meaning) without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-style search with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the important invocation distinctions, result semantics, and fallback behavior. Nothing necessary for a correct call is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema has 0% property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It richly explains the keyword parameter and illustrates company/keyword with the Intuit/maternity example, though the limit parameter is left to inference from its name and default.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Find a company's posts about one keyword') and the examples make the exact scope unmistakable. It also contrasts with the generic 'main listing' by saying this returns keyword-specific threads.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly positions itself as the way to search Blind and gives concrete keyword-selection advice. It mentions the 'main listing' as an alternative that fails to surface old threads, but it does not name sibling tools or state explicit when-not-to-use cases.

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

Deploy Server