tez_search_protocolSearch Tezos protocol specifications and OCaml source code, with optional protocol name filter.
Search protocol specifications and OCaml source code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results (1-50, default 5) | |
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| protocol | No | Optional protocol name filter (e.g. 'paris', 'tallinn', 'alpha') |
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or has any side effects, although search operations are typically safe. This lack of explicit mention reduces transparency.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that states the action and target without any unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 simple search tool, the description is minimally sufficient. It does not mention the return format or any specific behaviors, but it covers the core function. With sibling tools present, a bit more context would be helpful, but it is not critically incomplete.
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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so per the baseline for full schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('protocol specifications and OCaml source code'), making the tool's purpose explicit. It does not fully differentiate from sibling search tools like tez_search_octez or tez_search_tzip, but the focus on 'protocol' provides some 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling search tools. It does not mention any conditions or alternatives, leaving the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.