search_tauri_docsSearch official Tauri 2 documentation for relevant pages; returns bounded results with titles, canonical URLs, sections, context, and version details.
Compatibility search path. Prefer resolve_tauri_docs followed by query_tauri_docs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results, from 1 to 10; defaults to 5. | |
| query | Yes | Search terms, 1-200 characters. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / query / maxTermsAdded value: +16v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a compatibility path, implying legacy or fallback status, but does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or other operational behavior.
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 short sentences with zero wasted words. The compatibility status is front-loaded, and the preferred alternative workflow follows immediately.
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 two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description gives the essential routing context. It could be clearer about exactly when this compatibility path is still required, but no output schema means return values need not be explained.
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 both query and limit are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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 labels this a 'Compatibility search path' and names the preferred sibling workflow, so an agent can distinguish it from resolve_tauri_docs and query_tauri_docs. However, the description itself never states the explicit verb 'search' or the resource 'Tauri documentation'—that comes from the title—making it clear but slightly reliant on surrounding metadata.
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 explicitly tells the agent to prefer resolve_tauri_docs followed by query_tauri_docs, which is strong alternative routing. It stops short of stating the exact condition under which this compatibility path should still be chosen, leaving the fallback threshold implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.