Search vault notes using semantic query embedding and rerank results with a cross-encoder.
Search vault notes semantically with cross-encoder reranking.
Flow: query embedding, vector retrieval, then cross-encoder reranking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | search text | |
| top_k | No | number of results |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals the processing flow—query embedding, vector retrieval, reranking—but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free.
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 brief and well structured: one sentence for purpose and one for flow. No redundant words are present.
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 covers the main behavior, but it does not mention result format or limitations. Since no annotation or output details are present, an agent has limited context about what the search will return.
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?
Both parameters are described in the schema, so coverage is 100%. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline for fully covered parameters.
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 identifies the action (search), the resource (vault notes), and the approach (semantic with cross-encoder reranking). It does not explicitly point to sibling search variants, but the semantic qualifier distinguishes it from hybrid and advanced search.
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 guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over search_vault_hybrid, search_advanced, find_similar_notes, or other search siblings. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.