action1-mcp-server

Search

action1_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Action1 endpoints, software repository items, and reports by query to locate relevant records and return compact, pageable results.

Instructions

Search. Perm: view_endpoints, view_software_repository, view_reports.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Set the maximum number of items to be returned (the page size).
`query`	Yes	Provide a query for searching.
`org_id`	No	Org UUID.
`verbose`	No	Skip per-item compactor.
`response_format`	No	Output format. Default markdown.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`count`	Yes
`items`	Yes
`total`	No
`truncated`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
```
Added value: +50000
```
addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```

changedInput schema / properties / limit / type

Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties

Added value: +{
+  "AD_organization_unit": {},
+  "AD_security_groups": {},
+  "CPU_model": {},
+  "CPU_name": {},
+  "CPU_size": {},
+  "MAC": {},
+  "NIC": {},
+  "OS": {},
+  "RAM": {},
+  "WiFi": {},
+  "address": {},
+  "agent_install_date": {},
+  "agent_version": {},
+  "alertable": {},
+  "architecture": {},
+  "builtin": {},
+  "column_aliases": {},
+  "comment": {},
+  "custom": {},
+  "data_sources": {},
+  "data_sourses": {},
+  "description": {},
+  "device_name": {},
+  "disk": {},
+  "drilldown_columns": {},
+  "filter_set": {},
+  "id": {},
+  "internal_notes": {},
+  "last_boot_time": {},
+  "last_seen": {},
+  "long_description": {},
+  "manufacturer": {},
+  "missing_updates": {},
+  "name": {},
+  "online_status": {},
+  "organization_id": {},
+  "parent_category": {},
+  "platform": {},
+  "reboot_required": {},
+  "report_data": {},
+  "report_errors": {},
+  "scope": {},
+  "self": {},
+  "serial": {},
+  "simple": {},
+  "simple_columns": {},
+  "status": {},
+  "subscription_status": {},
+  "summary_columns": {},
+  "summary_customizable": {},
+  "type": {},
+  "update_status": {},
+  "user": {},
+  "vendor": {},
+  "versions": {},
+  "video": {},
+  "vulnerabilities": {},
+  "vulnerability_status": {}
+}

First observedv0.5.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added value is the required permission names, which is useful access context but no detail on result caps, cost, or breadth of the open-world search.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is short and front-loaded, but the leading word "Search" carries no information and the permission tokens are terse abbreviations. Brevity here reflects under-specification more than disciplined concision.

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 five-parameter, open-world search tool with several search-like siblings, the description omits query syntax, result scope, and domain boundaries. An output schema exists so return shape is covered, but the selection guidance an agent needs is largely missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters including query, limit, org_id, verbose, and response_format are already documented. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage but leaves the baseline 3.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is essentially "Search", which restates the tool name without saying what resource is searched or what kind of query is accepted. It gives no hint of how this differs from siblings like action1_search_endpoints or action1_audit_log_search, leaving the agent to guess scope from the permission list.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many search/list siblings. The permission tokens (view_endpoints, view_software_repository, view_reports) faintly suggest a cross-domain search, but the agent must infer this.

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

Deploy Server