search_drawingsFinds drawings whose name or text contains every word of a query, ignoring case. Name matches rank first and each result includes a text snippet around the match.
Finds drawings whose name or text contains every word of the query, case-insensitive. Name matches come first; each result has a snippet of the text around the match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 20. | |
| query | Yes | ||
| space | No | Only this Space. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: AND-semantics across all query words, case-insensitive matching, name matches ranked first, and a text snippet around each match. What's missing is any note on result count behavior or what happens when no drawing matches.
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 tight sentences with zero padding; the matching rule comes first and the result-shape detail second. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.
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 three-parameter search with no output schema, the description supplies the ranking rule and the result shape (snippet around the match), which is the key unknown. It leaves the space filter and limit semantics to the schema, which is acceptable given their low complexity.
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?
At 67% schema coverage the schema already documents limit and space, but the description adds genuine meaning for the undocumented query parameter: all words must match, matching is case-insensitive, and both name and body text are searched. It says nothing about the space enum or limit bounds beyond what the schema states, so it adds value on one param and not the other two.
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?
"Finds drawings whose name or text contains every word of the query" gives a specific verb (finds), resource (drawings) and match surface (name or text), which distinguishes it from list_drawings by implying content-based lookup. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the listing siblings, so an agent must infer that distinction.
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: the phrase "every word of the query" signals a multi-term search, and the mention of name-vs-text matching hints at when this beats a plain listing. There is no explicit "use this instead of list_drawings when..." statement, no note on empty/all-word behavior, and no guidance on narrowing with the space filter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.