alg-search-discussionsSearch the 50 most recently active GitHub Discussions in the AL-Go repository by query to find relevant Business Central automation discussions and answers.
Search the 50 most recently active GitHub Discussions in the AL-Go repository. Requires a GitHub token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| query | Yes | Search query for discussions |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.0Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +50Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"v2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement (GitHub token) and the hard corpus bound (only the 50 most recently active discussions), which tells the agent this is not a full-repository search. It omits return shape, ordering, and rate-limit behavior.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the scoping constraint and the auth requirement. Nothing is redundant and no filler is present.
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?
For a two-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and auth adequately but leaves the result format and ranking behavior unexplained. An agent knows how to call it, but not entirely what to expect back.
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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema, setting a baseline of 3. The phrase '50 most recently active' clarifies what the limit budget applies to, but no query syntax or matching semantics are given.
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) and resource (GitHub Discussions) scoped to the AL-Go repository, which separates it from sibling search tools like alg-search-docs and alg-search-specialists. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling alg-search-issues.
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 implied by the name and resource, and the description adds a prerequisite (GitHub token required). It never says when to prefer this over alg-search-issues or alg-semantic-search, nor states any exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.