Find tasks, projects, or comments by keyword. Filter results by type, project, or workspace to locate relevant information immediately.
Search tasks, projects, or comments
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by type | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20) | |
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| projectId | No | Filter by project | |
| workspaceId | No | Filter by workspace |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search' and does not describe whether the operation is read-only, which fields are searched, how filters combine, or what the response contains.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is economical. However, it is so minimal that it does not carry enough useful information for a tool with five parameters and no output schema.
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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition is incomplete. Missing details include the result shape, whether results are tasks/projects/comments records or something else, default type behavior, and how projectId and workspaceId interact with the type filter.
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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema alone suffices for understanding query, type, limit, projectId, and workspaceId.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and names several resources, which distinguishes it from sibling list tools. However, it omits workspaces and activities even though the schema supports them, and it is unclear whether it returns matching items or just summaries.
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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling list_* and get_* tools. An agent has to infer that search is for ad hoc queries, so the description does not help route correctly in ambiguous cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.