Search node IDs, labels, and notes by keyword, with an optional class filter to narrow results to clients, engagements, deliverables, gates, or other record types.
Keyword search over node ids, labels, and notes. Optional class filter (client, engagement, deliverable, document_slot, gate, open_item, ...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cls | No | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the searched fields, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs fuzzy, case sensitivity) or result ordering, and never states the search is read-only and side-effect free.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the filter detail. Nothing is padded and there is no restatement of the tool name.
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 not be described. But for an unannotated tool with three undocumented parameters, the definition is silent on result limits, matching behavior, and how it relates to the other retrieval siblings — gaps an agent would notice when choosing between them.
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 adequately covers 'query' (which fields are searched) and 'cls', including useful example class values absent from the schema's untyped string. The third parameter, 'limit', is never mentioned, and it is unstated whether 'cls' accepts multiple classes.
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 states a concrete verb and search surface: keyword search over node ids, labels, and notes. That is far more specific than the bare name 'find'. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like get_node or open_items, which also surface nodes.
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: the agent can infer 'use this to locate nodes by keyword'. The statement that search covers ids, labels and notes (not document bodies) hints that read_doc is the alternative for content lookups, but that boundary is never made explicit and no when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.