Find Logseq blocks whose text contains a case-insensitive query, returning matches from the most recent journals first.
Blocks whose text contains query (case-insensitive), most recent journals first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: matching is case-insensitive and results are returned most-recent-journals-first, which is exactly the ordering information an agent needs to interpret output. It stops short of describing pagination or result breadth.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the matching rule and appends the ordering constraint. No filler, no restatement of the name, every clause 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and one required parameter is documented. The gaps are the undocumented 'limit' parameter and the unspecified scope of the search (which journals/blocks are searched). Enough to call it, but not fully complete.
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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the semantics of 'query' (substring match, case-insensitive) but says nothing about 'limit' — its default of 20, any maximum, or what happens when more matches exist. Partial compensation, so a middle score.
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 gives a specific resource (blocks), the matching rule (text contains query, case-insensitive), and the result ordering (most recent journals first). It is clearly distinguishable from the get_*/list_* siblings, which retrieve known entities rather than search by text. It is not a tautology, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'search'.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for free-text lookup of blocks, and no sibling offers an alternative search path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of scope (all journals vs. a workspace), and no guidance about repeated or alternate queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.