Search Shortcut stories with query syntax to filter by state, owner, or other fields; returns matching results up to the requested limit.
Search Shortcut stories with the search syntax.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results to return (max 25, default 25) | |
| query | Yes | Search query (e.g. 'state:"In Progress" owner:me') | |
| api_token | Yes | Shortcut API token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description says nothing about result shape, whether the search spans all workspaces, how pagination or the 25-result cap behaves, or what token scope is needed — all open questions for an open-world search call.
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 short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than deliberately terse, leaving little room for the agent to 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 search endpoint with no output schema, the description should at least sketch what a result contains (story IDs, names, workflows) and note that IDs feed shortcut_get_story. None of that is present, so the agent cannot plan a follow-up call from this definition.
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%, including an example query with field syntax and the limit cap, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's phrase 'search syntax' gestures at the query grammar but never explains it, adding nothing beyond the schema example.
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 verb (search) and resource (Shortcut stories), but 'with the search syntax' is circular and adds no discriminating detail against siblings like shortcut_get_story or shortcut_list_epics. An agent can infer the tool is a search, but nothing in the text confirms what a story is or how results differ from the other Shortcut tools.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus shortcut_get_story or any other retrieval tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess that this is the entry point for finding stories by query.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.