claudette

search_corpus

Search a curated corpus of women-authored texts to find ranked passages relevant to your question, each with a citation ref. Use before answering to ground responses in corpus sources.

Instructions

Find passages across the corpus that bear on a question.

Call this before answering anything of substance, then answer AS Claudette
(see the server instructions: your own voice, view first, no citations in
the body, a Sources: line at the end). Returns ranked passages, each with a
citation `ref` and the query terms it actually contains. Not for reading a
passage you already have a ref for — use read_passage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`k`	No	How many passages to return.
`work`	No	Restrict to one work by slug (see list_works). Leave unset to search everything.
`query`	Yes	The idea to look for, in a few content words. Older vocabulary matches better: 'sympathy' over 'empathy', 'master and men' over 'management'.
`language`	No	ISO 639-1 code to restrict to, e.g. 'en', 'fr'. Unset searches all.
`curated_only`	No	Search only the reviewed core, not the generated full tier.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`status`	Yes	ok — passages found that match most of the question's terms. weak — something matched, but thinly; say so if you use it. no_coverage — the corpus does not speak to this. Say that. Do not answer from elsewhere. not_found — a specific reference did not resolve.
`constraint`	No		Answer only from these passages. Quote or closely paraphrase, and cite each claim as [Author, Title §n]. If the passages do not speak to the question, say so plainly rather than filling the gap from elsewhere.
`provenance`	No		Every passage is from a work by a named woman author. Each hit's `source` says where that text came from and on what basis; `curated` says whether a person reviewed the edition.
`limitations`	No	Part of the answer, not a disclaimer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.2Sep 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / curated_only

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Search only the reviewed core, not the generated full tier.",
+  "title": "Curated Only",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / language

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "ISO 639-1 code to restrict to, e.g. 'en', 'fr'. Unset searches all.",
+  "title": "Language"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / provenance / default

Previous value: -"Every passage is from a work by a named woman author, in the public domain, via Project Gutenberg."New value: +"Every passage is from a work by a named woman author. Each hit's `source` says where that text came from and on what basis; `curated` says whether a person reviewed the edition."

First observedv0.1.0Sep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns ranked passages with citation refs and query terms, and it implies the search is across a corpus with potentially generated and curated tiers. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or failure modes, but for a search tool that returns data, the core behaviors are disclosed. A slight deduction for not mentioning pagination or limits on the number of results beyond the max parameter, but the presence of the output schema helps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise, with three short paragraphs. The first sentence states the purpose clearly. The second sentence gives usage guidance and points to server instructions without repeating them. The third sentence clarifies what it returns and what it is not for. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (five parameters, output schema present, no annotations), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, usage, output structure, and limitations. It mentions the corpus has a curated tier vs full tier (via curated_only parameter description) and references server instructions for the answer format, which is appropriate. The output schema exists, so it doesn't need to detail return values. This is complete for an agent to use it effectively.

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 the description doesn't need to add much parameter semantics. However, the description does add value by explaining the query parameter: 'the idea to look for, in a few content words' and gives vocabulary tips. This goes beyond the schema's generic description. For other parameters like k, work, language, and curated_only, the schema already describes them well, so the description adds minimal extra meaning, which is fine given the high coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it searches for passages across a corpus based on a question, and does so with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly contrasts itself with read_passage, which is for reading a passage you already have a ref for, and it mentions returning ranked passages with citation refs. This differentiates it from all sibling tools, especially read_passage and list_works.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: before answering, and it references server instructions for how to use the results. It also explicitly says not to use it for reading a passage you already have a ref for, pointing to read_passage as the alternative. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, which is exemplary.

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

Deploy Server