Search names and docstrings in the running CLO API to locate specific functions or documentation. Provides matching results directly; use the API catalog tool for paginated browsing.
Search names and docstrings in the running CLO API. Requires the bridge. Use clo_api_catalog for pagination.
| 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds the bridge prerequisite and the 'running API' scope, but doesn't mention read-only behavior, no-result behavior, or other operational traits.
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?
Three short, purposeful sentences; verb and target front-loaded, then dependency, then routing to the alternative. Every sentence 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?
With an output schema present and only two simple parameters, this covers the essential context: scope, prerequisite, and where pagination lives. Minor gap: no detail on what happens when nothing matches.
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 add parameter meaning. It clarifies the query context (search over names and docstrings) and routes pagination elsewhere, but does not explicitly explain the query or limit parameters' formats.
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?
States a specific verb ('Search'), a precise target ('names and docstrings in the running CLO API'), and distinguishes itself from clo_api_catalog by naming it as the pagination-oriented alternative.
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?
Explicitly says the bridge is required and points to clo_api_catalog for pagination. It does not fully specify when to prefer one over the other, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.