Search ASM across Obsidian vault pages, mapped code, and shared-memory records to recall context before editing files.
Search ASM across vault pages, mapped code, and immediate shared-memory records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about ranking, result limits, permissions, or behavior on empty/no-match queries. It only names the corpora searched, which is a scoping statement rather than a behavioral trait.
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 tight sentence with no filler, and the scope (the three corpora) is front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient, though the unexplained "ASM" term adds ambiguity rather than value.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with no annotations and no usage context, the description leaves the search semantics and the read-only nature implicit; adequate for a one-parameter search, but with clear gaps.
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?
The single query parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description does not compensate — it never explains whether the query is free text, a keyword list, a regex, or a structured expression. Meaning beyond the schema is absent.
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 clear verb+resource ("Search ASM") and enumerates three target corpora, which hints at scope. However, "ASM" is unexplained jargon and the description does nothing to differentiate this tool from siblings like memory_recent or brain_context, leaving the agent to guess at the distinction.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided, no exclusions, and no alternatives named despite six closely related sibling tools. The agent cannot tell from the text when brain_search should be preferred over memory_recent or brain_context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.