Query development nodes by keyword, side, and limit to retrieve node details (name, description, category, parameters) as JSON for code generation.
在 1275 节点索引中查询节点（名/描述/侧/分类/参数），返回 JSON 便于 codegen
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| side | No | 默认 any | |
| limit | No | 默认 10 | |
| query | Yes | 关键词，如「进入碰撞」「结算」「定时器」 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It states the output is JSON but doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or involves any constraints like rate limits. The absence of any mutability statement is a gap for an unannotated tool.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and return type without redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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?
No output schema is present, and the description only says 'returns JSON' without specifying structure, error cases, or behavior when no results are found. It also doesn't explain the node index's semantics or how limit/side interact, leaving critical usage details unspecified.
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%, with each parameter (side, limit, query) having defaults or examples. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 clearly states the tool queries a node index (1275 nodes) with fields like name/description/side/category/params and returns JSON for codegen. It distinguishes from siblings like list_nodes (which likely lists all) by implying a filtered query, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs list_nodes, lookup_official_doc, or search_knowledge. The description implies it's for codegen-related node lookups but provides no conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.