Motion MCP Server

motion_search

Search Motion tasks and projects by query to find relevant work items across specified workspaces and scopes.

Instructions

Search Motion tasks and projects by query

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "operation": "<operation>"
    },
    "name": "motion_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results
`query`	No	Search query (required)
`operation`	Yes	Operation to perform
`searchScope`	No	What to search (default: both)
`workspaceId`	No	Workspace ID to limit search
`workspaceName`	No	Workspace name (alternative to workspaceId)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.10.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. 'Search' implies read-only and the description names the searched resource types, but it doesn't disclose default scope, operation constraint, result shape, or workspace behavior. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place, though the brevity means some context is handled by the schema rather than the description.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, a single generic sentence is not enough. Missing return-format information, guidance on operation/content, default searchScope, and how to limit by workspace leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'query' being central, and there is an internal schema inconsistency: query is described as required but is not in the required array. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a clear action ('Search') and a specific resource set ('Motion tasks and projects'), which distinguishes it from the resource-specific sibling tools like motion_tasks and motion_projects. It doesn't explicitly say it searches across both at once, but the plural scope is reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance about when to choose this search tool over the dedicated task/project/comment tools, no mention of scoping with workspaceId/workspaceName, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema.

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

Deploy Server