Search due diligence vault text to find passages with document, page, and offset references, optionally scoped to a review unit.
Search the vault's text and return passages with their document, page, and offsets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | What to look for, in the documents' own words. | |
| unit_id | No | Restrict to one review unit. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions that it returns passages with metadata, which is minimal. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Given the lack of annotations, the description should have provided more transparency but does not.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the core function and output without any fluff or unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse, making it ideal for quick agent comprehension.
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?
The description and schema together provide enough for a basic call: the required query parameter and the output format are clear. However, it lacks context on when to use this tool, potential limitations (e.g., scope of search), or error conditions. Still, for a straightforward search operation, it is fairly complete, though not exhaustive.
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?
The schema describes 'query' and 'unit_id' with clear semantics, but 'limit' has no description, leaving only its integer type and default (10) to infer its meaning. The tool description also does not clarify the role of 'limit'. Thus, parameter semantics are only partially covered, and the agent must infer some details from context.
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?
The description clearly states the action (search), the resource (the vault's text), and the output (passages with document, page, and offsets). It is specific and distinct from the sibling tools such as vault_ingest (which adds content) or table_read (which reads tabular data), making it easy for an agent to identify the right tool.
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 description implies the tool is used to search vault text, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced, and there is no guidance on contexts where this tool should not be used. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.