Search plant presets by name, scientific name, description, or tags to find matching botanical assets for generative art.
Full-text search across plant preset names, scientific names, descriptions, and tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (e.g. 'tropical', 'fibonacci', 'fern', 'Quercus'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add real behavioral context by disclosing which fields are indexed (names, scientific names, descriptions, tags), but says nothing about ranking, case sensitivity, result limits, or that it is a read-only operation returning preset records.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every clause (search verb, resource, and searched fields) 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?
For a one-parameter, read-only search with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful gap is not naming the list-presets sibling as the enumeration alternative.
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 coverage is 100% and the query param already carries examples, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by explaining what the query string actually matches against — the field set — which the schema does not state, meriting a bump.
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 and resource: 'Full-text search across plant preset names, scientific names, descriptions, and tags.' This clearly distinguishes it from a plain list operation, but it never names the close sibling design_list_plant_presets, so the agent must infer the split between searching and listing.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can deduce it is for locating plants by text, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no 'use design_list_plant_presets instead when enumerating', and no note on what happens with zero matches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.