LS-PrePost-MCP

by lwz20210407

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_commands

Find LS-PrePost commands by query in the Apache-2.0 catalog to locate syntax and attributes; results are catalog rows, not executable validation.

Instructions

Search the attributed Apache-2.0 command catalog; rows are not executable validation.

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_commands"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one non-obvious trait: results are catalog rows and 'not executable validation', which prevents an agent from treating hits as runnable commands. It says nothing about result volume, ordering, or the limit behavior, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the caveat appended; no wasted words, though the terseness borders on cryptic.

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?

For a two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the definition should at least explain query semantics and how it differs from the other search_* siblings. The non-executability warning is valuable, but the routing and parameter gaps leave the agent under-informed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and neither parameter is explained. The description says nothing about what 'query' matches against or what 'limit' controls (beyond the schema default of 20), so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a clear verb+resource: searching the 'command catalog'. The qualifier 'attributed Apache-2.0' and the non-executability caveat distinguish it from sibling search tools like search_knowledge and search_workflows, though the scope of the catalog itself is left somewhat cryptic.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus search_knowledge or search_workflows, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the routing from the noun 'commands' alone.

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