cocos_capability_searchSearch the Cocos Creator operation catalog to find capabilities by query or module. Pinpoint the right command before execution, enabling discovery of long-tail features for your workflow.
搜索操作目录；先查询再执行长尾功能
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| module | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only a sequencing hint (search before execute) but nothing about return format, pagination, or limitations. With annotations present, the description contributes little beyond what is already structured.
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 short (one phrase) but under-specified. It is not effectively concise because it omits essential operational details. Front-loading is minimal, and the single sentence fails to convey the tool's purpose or usage meaningfully.
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 four parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the tool is severely under-documented. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly without external knowledge. The description does not even hint at what the search returns or how to construct a valid query.
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%, and the description provides no information about the four parameters (query, module, limit, offset). The agent cannot infer what values are expected, what the query field searches, or how module filters results. This is a critical gap.
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 states a search operation directory, which is a clear verb+resource, but it is too vague to distinguish from sibling tools like cocos_operation_query or cocos_capability_describe. It doesn't specify what exactly is searched (capabilities? operations?) or what the results look like, leaving the agent to infer the scope.
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 phrase '先查询再执行长尾功能' implies a search-before-execute workflow for long-tail functions, but it never names alternatives or provides explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of the relationship to cocos_capability_describe or cocos_capability_execute, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.