Search Construct 3 documentation by keyword to find relevant topics and code examples with relevance-scored snippets. Filter results by category, language, or limit.
Full-text search across Construct 3 documentation. Returns matching topics with relevance-scored snippets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language code (default: en) | |
| limit | No | Max results (default: 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| category | No | Filter by category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are matching topics with relevance-scored snippets, which is useful return context, but it does not discuss pagination, result ordering, or operational constraints beyond what the schema implies.
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 two efficient sentences with the core operation front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant or filler text.
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?
Given the low complexity, complete schema descriptions, and absence of an output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. The main missing element is explicit routing guidance versus sibling tools.
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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the general idea of a full-text search, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: full-text search across Construct 3 documentation. It distinguishes the operation from list/get siblings by emphasizing search and relevance-scored snippets, but does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_doc or list_topics.
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 by 'full-text search' and returning matching topics, so an agent can infer this is for query-based lookup. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like get_doc or list_topics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.