Perplexity Web MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pplx_kimi_k26_thinking

Get in-depth answers to complex questions using Kimi K2.6 Thinking, Moonshot's extended-thinking model via Perplexity. Submit a query and optional source focus; each call uses one Pro search query.

Instructions

Kimi K2.6 Thinking — Moonshot's advanced model with extended thinking. COSTS 1 PRO SEARCH QUERY.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "pplx_kimi_k26_thinking"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`query`	Yes
`source_focus`	No	web
`conversation_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.14.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description mentions a cost of 1 Pro search query, which is a behavioral trait. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose other traits such as read/write nature, authentication needs, or side effects, leaving significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with key info (model name and cost). While concise, it omits critical details, so it is not fully effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no schema descriptions) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations and usage context, even though an output schema is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has three parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description adds no information about them. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no semantic help for parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the tool as Kimi K2.6 Thinking, Moonshot's advanced model with extended thinking, which clearly indicates its purpose. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool sends a query and returns a response, making it less direct than ideal.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 like pplx_kimi_k26 or other thinking models. There is no context about preferred use cases or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.