Search for entities by name or alias within a specific scope to retrieve matching records.
Search entity names/aliases in one exact scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| namespace | No | ||
| include_deleted | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning 'exact scope' but does not explain side effects, return format, or pagination behavior, which would be valuable beyond the annotations.
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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'exact scope' means, how parameters interact, what results look like, or any edge cases. The agent would need to infer or test extensively.
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?
The schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. The meaning of 'query', 'limit', 'offset', 'include_deleted', 'type', 'project', and 'namespace' is entirely unspecified, leaving the agent without critical usage information.
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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'entity names/aliases', making the primary purpose obvious. However, 'one exact scope' is vague and does not specify what scope means (e.g., namespace, project), slightly reducing clarity.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_search or relation_search. It does not mention specific conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.