Search across Paymenter users, orders, services, invoices, and tickets with a single query. Find matching records by keyword.
Universal search across multiple Paymenter entities (users, orders, services, invoices, tickets) matching a search query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results per entity (1-50, default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search term or keyword to match against entities | |
| entities | No | Target entities to search. Defaults to all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about result ordering, matching semantics (prefix, substring, fuzzy), permissions, or how cross-entity results are combined. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves meaningful behavior undisclosed.
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 that states the scope and the covered entities with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is terse enough that it feels under-specified rather than deliberately economical.
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 would ideally say something about the returned result shape or how per-entity results are structured. It covers the search scope adequately but omits return-format context that an agent would need to interpret results.
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%, so the schema already documents query, limit (1-50, default 10), and entities. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond restating that entities are searched, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (Paymenter entities: users, orders, services, invoices, tickets), so the purpose is immediately clear. It implies differentiation from the many entity-specific list_* siblings by calling itself 'universal', but 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?
There is no guidance on when to use a cross-entity search versus the numerous entity-specific siblings such as paymenter_list_users or paymenter_list_invoices. No exclusions, prerequisites, or routing conditions are given, so the agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.