Search for project actions using filters like status, priority, and project ID to quickly locate relevant records.
Search actions by criteria
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| limit | No | Results per page | |
| query | No | Search query | |
| status | No | Filter by action status | |
| priority | No | Filter by priority | |
| projectId | No | Filter by project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only search operation but does not mention pagination behavior, result limits, how 'query' interacts with the filters, or what is returned. The schema supplies defaults (page=1, limit=20) but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Search'.
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 maximally concise—four words, front-loaded, with no wasted phrasing. However, the brevity borders on under-specification for a 6-parameter tool, trading informativeness for compactness.
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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling family, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what results look like, how filters combine with query, or how this search relates to boond_actions_get/create/update/delete, so an agent has insufficient context to invoke it confidently.
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 all six parameters (page, limit, query, status, priority, projectId) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'by criteria' vaguely alludes to the filter parameters but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which lands at the baseline.
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 clear verb ('Search') and resource ('actions'), so an agent can identify this as the action-search tool among many search siblings without opening the schema. However, 'by criteria' is generic and adds no specificity about what distinguishes this search from the other *_search tools beyond the resource name.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like boond_actions_get (fetch a single action) or the other search tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.