Search catalog records by collection, filters, and result limit to find journals, theses, books, research, articles, or ebooks in UMB Digilib and Repository.
Cari katalog; gunakan catalog_fields untuk nama filters. limit membatasi hasil lokal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| filters | No | ||
| collection | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that limit constrains local results and that filter names come from catalog_fields, but it does not describe result behavior, pagination, or authentication context.
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 a single compact sentence, front-loaded with the tool's action, and contains no filler. However, its terseness contributes to gaps elsewhere rather than being optimally structured for a 3-parameter nested-filter tool.
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?
With 3 parameters, a nested filters object, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It leaves the required collection parameter and filter value semantics unexplained, requiring the agent to infer too much from schema structure alone.
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 explains filters naming via catalog_fields and limit behavior, but it does not explain the required collection enum, allowed collection values, or the string format of filter values.
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 says 'Cari katalog' (Search catalog), which is a clear verb+resource, but it remains generic about what is searched or returned. It points to catalog_fields for filter names, which helps distinguish parameter discovery, but does not clearly differentiate the tool from catalog_item or repository_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?
The only usage guidance is to use catalog_fields for filter names and that limit caps local results. There is no guidance on when to choose catalog_search over catalog_item or repository_search, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.