search_toolsSearch Linode API tools using natural language queries and return compact summaries with purpose, access level, required OAuth scopes, and parameters.
Search the Linode API tools in natural language. Returns a compact summary of each match: title, purpose, access level, required OAuth scopes, and parameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Natural language query to search for tools |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return contents (title, purpose, access level, OAuth scopes, parameters), which is real value, but it omits that search is read-only and side-effect free, plus any result ranking, limits, or permission 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 short sentences, action and resource front-loaded, and the second sentence explains the result shape. Nothing is redundant.
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 one-parameter read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input style, and return contents well. Only safety/permission and result-limit behavior are unstated.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. 'Natural language' in the description mirrors the schema verbatim and adds no syntax, quoting, or format guidance.
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?
The description names a specific verb (search) and resource (Linode API tools) and states it works in natural language, which tells an agent this is a discovery tool. The sibling names get_tool_schema and call_tool imply the distinction, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the step before get_tool_schema or call_tool. There is no stated when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.