war-selection-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_guide

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the bundled Russian War Selection modding guide by query to retrieve matching sections, line numbers, and snippets.

Instructions

Search the bundled Russian modding guide (guide-ru.md); returns section, line and snippet.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_guide"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return format (section, line, snippet), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about matching behavior, result ordering, or how limit truncates results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and scoping detail, then states the return shape. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only two-parameter search with annotations covering safety, purpose plus return fields is close to sufficient. However, the omission of query syntax and limit semantics leaves a real gap for a search tool, even if a minor one.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and does not. It never defines what 'query' accepts (plain text, regex, phrase?) or what 'limit' (default 8) controls or counts. Both params are left to guesswork.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search) and a precisely scoped resource (the bundled Russian modding guide, guide-ru.md), and names the return shape (section, line, snippet). This clearly separates it from sibling searchers like search_mod_code, search_api, and find_examples, which target different corpora.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The narrow 'bundled Russian modding guide' scope implies when to reach for this over the other search_* tools, but the description never states it explicitly and offers no when-not guidance. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.