Submit a web query to Perplexity's Grok 4.5 Thinking model to obtain reasoned answers with citations. Each call costs one Pro search query.
Grok 4.5 Thinking — xAI's most advanced model with thinking. COSTS 1 PRO SEARCH QUERY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| source_focus | No | web | |
| conversation_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.14.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'COSTS 1 PRO SEARCH QUERY,' which is useful for cost-aware agents. However, with no annotations provided, additional details like idempotency, error handling, or output format are missing, leaving the behavioral profile incomplete.
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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices essential information. It front-loads the model name but does not structure the content to aid quick comprehension; it feels incomplete rather than efficiently minimal.
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 has three parameters and an output schema, the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It omits parameter meanings, usage scenarios, and result behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to use 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%, yet the description offers no explanation for any of the three parameters (query, source_focus, conversation_id). The description is expected to compensate for low coverage but fails entirely, providing zero parameter semantics.
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?
Description names the model 'Grok 4.5 Thinking' and states it is 'xAI's most advanced model with thinking,' which conveys the tool's purpose as a reasoning-capable search model. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'search' or 'query' to describe the action, leaving some ambiguity compared to sibling tools like pplx_grok45.
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 provided on when to use this tool over its many siblings (e.g., pplx_grok45, pplx_sonar, pplx_deep_research). The description does not specify contexts or alternatives, making it difficult for an agent to choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.