Search public Japanese Mama Rich articles on mamakatsu using one or more keywords, returning titles, descriptions, and source URLs for articles matching all terms, ranked by site views.
ママリッチの公開解説記事を検索します。タイトル・説明・出典URLを返します。複数の検索語はすべてに一致する記事を対象にし、サイトでの表示回数順に返します。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 取得件数。省略時は5件 | |
| query | Yes | 検索語。例：東京 安全 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: results are sorted by site display count and multi-term queries require all terms to match — both are non-obvious traits an agent needs to interpret results.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return fields, and query/ordering semantics. The core purpose is front-loaded, with no filler.
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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (title, description, source URL) and the ranking rule. Limit bounds and defaults live in the schema, so nothing critical is missing, though pagination/truncation behavior if more than 10 matches exist is unstated.
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%, so both parameters are documented (query example, limit default/max). The description goes further by clarifying how the query string is interpreted (all terms must match) and that results are ranked by display count, which the schema does not convey.
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 opening sentence names a specific verb (検索します) and a specific resource (ママリッチの公開解説記事), and the second sentence enumerates what is returned. There are no sibling tools to disambiguate from, so the agent can identify the tool's function from the description alone.
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?
The description explains how multi-term queries behave (AND semantics) and how results are ordered, which guides usage. However, it never states when to use this tool versus not, or any preconditions — with no siblings, this is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.