Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HomarUScc

HomarUScc

by kcdjmaxx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

docs_search

Search domain-specific documentation indexes to find answers. Specify a domain like 'touchdesigner' or use '*' to search all domains.

Instructions

Search a domain-specific documentation index. Each domain has its own vector DB (e.g., 'touchdesigner', 'openclaw'). Use docs_list to see available domains.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "docs_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 10)
queryYesSearch query
domainYesDomain name (e.g., 'touchdesigner'). Use '*' to search all domains.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It adds the domain-specific vector DB context, but doesn't mention return format, how results are ranked, or any potential side effects. For a search tool, this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes only useful information with zero waste. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Despite the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is sufficient for a simple search tool with fully documented parameters. It could mention result format or error behavior, but the simplicity of the operation makes this gap acceptable.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds a concrete domain example and points to docs_list for domain options, providing marginal extra value beyond the schema for the domain parameter.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool searches a domain-specific documentation index, gives concrete examples (touchdesigner, openclaw), and points to docs_list for domain discovery, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_search.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly tells users to use docs_list to see available domains, which is a clear prerequisite and usage guideline. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative search tools, leaving some implicit differentiation.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools