search_in_sessionFind thoughts by keyword within a specific session, searching content, tags, and modes, and return paginated matches.
Search for thoughts within a specific session by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| query | Yes | Search query (searches content, tags, and modes) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| sessionName | Yes | Session name to search in (format: category:name:subcategory) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it delivers almost nothing: no statement about read-only nature, behavior when the session doesn't exist, result ordering, or pagination. Only the keyword-matching nature of the search is disclosed.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a 4-parameter tool.
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 and no annotations, the description should say more about what is returned and how it differs from search_all_sessions. The schema covers parameters and pagination, so basic invocation is possible, but routing and return expectations are left unaddressed.
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 100%, with each of the 4 parameters documented (limit, query, offset, sessionName format), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only "by keyword," which is weaker than the schema's own note that the query searches content, tags, and modes.
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 (search), resource (thoughts), and scope (within a specific session), and the scope implicitly sets it apart from the sibling search_all_sessions. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.
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?
"Within a specific session" implies you use this when you already know the session, which contrasts implicitly with search_all_sessions. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, leaving usage to be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.