nine_searchSearches the web using 9router's keyless connection, returning a specified number of results for a given query, optionally using a specified provider.
Web search through 9router's connection. Keyless for you.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| provider | No | searchapi |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool read-only and open-world. The description adds an auth-related behavior: no key is needed because the search goes through 9router's connection. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though rate limits and provider behavior are not disclosed.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action and key differentiator. Every phrase 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 simple search tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers core purpose and authentication. However, it omits parameter semantics and sibling differentiation, leaving the agent to infer count/provider meaning and when to prefer this over web_search. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 does not explain count or provider parameters. The property names and defaults give minimal clues, but the agent receives no guidance on valid provider values or count semantics. This is a significant 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?
States a clear verb+resource ('Web search') and adds a differentiator ('through 9router's connection. Keyless for you'). The title reinforces the resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling web_search, but the 9router/keyless angle provides enough distinction.
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 explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided. 'Keyless for you' implies a use case (when API keys are unavailable) but does not state exclusions relative to web_search or wiki_search. Guidance is only implied, not actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.