Search an offline local knowledge base of crawled web documentation and files, returning exact citations, file paths, and line numbers for each matching chunk.
Searches the offline local knowledge base (crawled web documentation and local files) with exact citations, file paths, and line numbers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query or question | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of chunks to return (default: 5) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the corpus searched is local/offline and results include exact citations, file paths, and line numbers. It omits the prerequisite that content must first be indexed (tealkit_index_local_docs / tealkit_crawl_and_index), says nothing about read-only semantics or result limits beyond the schema default, and gives no guidance on empty results.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence: verb and resource first, corpus and return contents after. No redundancy with the title or filler, and every clause adds information an agent can act on.
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 low-complexity two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by stating the corpus and the shape of results (citations, file paths, line numbers). The main gap is the indexing prerequisite and any hint about how to use results versus tealkit_get_source_doc.
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 'query' and 'max_results' are already documented, and the description adds no syntax, format, or query-construction guidance. Per the rubric, full schema coverage sets the baseline at 3.
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 (searches) and resource (offline local knowledge base) and names the corpus (crawled web documentation and local files), which clearly separates it from indexing siblings like tealkit_crawl_and_index and tealkit_index_local_docs. It stops short of naming a sibling to route to, e.g. tealkit_get_source_doc for fetching a full document, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 phrase 'offline local knowledge base' implies the context in which this tool applies (querying already-indexed local content rather than live sources), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no alternative is named. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.