Find documents in Outline wiki by keyword with paginated results for efficient information retrieval.
Search documents by keyword. Supports pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| collectionId | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does 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 mentions 'Supports pagination,' which adds some context about handling large datasets, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the search results look like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 extremely concise with two short sentences: 'Search documents by keyword. Supports pagination.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits, output format, and usage context. For a search operation that likely returns structured data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.
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 0%, meaning none of the parameters (query, collectionId, limit, offset) are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'keyword' (implied for 'query') and 'pagination' (implied for 'limit' and 'offset'), but doesn't explain the purpose of 'collectionId' or provide details on parameter usage. It adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search documents by keyword.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('documents'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_related' or 'get_document_id_from_title', which might also involve searching, so it's not fully distinguished.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Supports pagination,' which hints at usage for large result sets, but doesn't specify contexts, exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'find_related' or 'list_recent_documents.' This leaves the agent with minimal direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.