Find locally preserved assignment titles, submission feedback, and full document text, returning snippets and IDs to retrieve original documents for full context.
Search locally preserved assignment titles, submission feedback and full document text. Returns short evidence snippets and IDs; retrieve original documents for full context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-derived context: results come from a locally preserved index and are deliberately truncated to short evidence snippets, meaning an agent should not expect complete text. Return granularity beyond the annotations is the useful addition; nothing contradicts the hints.
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 sentences, no filler, with the retrieval scope front-loaded and the follow-up action placed second. Each sentence earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does cover the return shape (short snippets plus IDs), which is the most important unknown for a search tool. However, with zero parameter descriptions and no mention of ranking, pagination, or result-count behavior, the definition is only minimally complete for a search operation with three undocumented inputs.
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 0% for all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden of parameter explanation and provides none. Nothing is said about query syntax or matching behavior, what limit's default of 20 means in practice, or that offset supports pagination — leaving the agent to guess at the retrieval semantics.
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) over three concretely enumerated corpora: assignment titles, submission feedback, and full document text. It also implicitly separates itself from full-document retrieval, so an agent can route between 'find evidence' and 'read the source' without opening either schema.
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?
It gives a clear usage rule: use this for snippets and IDs, then retrieve the original document for full context. That is an explicit when-to-use/when-to-switch statement, though it never names the alternative (read_document) nor states any exclusion relative to list_assignments or get_feedback.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.