mechanic-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_tasks

Search Mechanic tasks by query, tags, or subscriptions to find relevant Shopify automation tasks, with fuzzy matching and pagination for precise results.

Instructions

Search Mechanic tasks

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`sort`	No	relevance
`tags`	No
`fuzzy`	No
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes
`offset`	No
`fuzzyMaxEdits`	No
`subscriptions`	No
`fuzzyMaxCandidates`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`nextOffset`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.7Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about pagination behavior, how relevance ordering works, fuzzy-matching defaults, or permission scope. Only the implicit read-only nature of "search" gives any behavioral signal.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Three words are technically concise but represent under-specification rather than efficiency; there is no front-loaded statement of scope, filtering, or result behavior to anchor the agent.

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

Completeness2/5

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 explained, but with nine parameters, no annotations, and no description of fuzzy-matching or pagination semantics, the definition is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across nine parameters, and the description compensates for none of it. Non-obvious parameters such as fuzzyMaxEdits, fuzzyMaxCandidates, subscriptions, tags, and the relevance-only sort enum are left entirely unexplained by both schema and description.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Search ... tasks"), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, "Mechanic tasks" is an unexplained qualifier, and nothing distinguishes this tool from the sibling similar_tasks or explains what corpus of tasks is searched.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer similar_tasks or get_task instead, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the tool name and sibling names.

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

Deploy Server