Search SQLite-cached podcast mentions with timestamp evidence. Filter by query, podcast, mention type, and case sensitivity to retrieve deterministic results.
搜尋 SQLite cache 中的 deterministic mentions 與 timestamp evidence。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| podcast_id | No | gooaye | |
| mention_type | No | ||
| case_sensitive | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some value by stating the data source (SQLite cache) and result focus (deterministic mentions and timestamp evidence). However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, cache staleness, or any operational side effects.
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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core behavior. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose.
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?
For a 5-parameter search tool with zero parameter documentation and no annotations, this terse description is insufficient. The agent is left guessing about parameter formats, defaults, and filter behavior. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-shape concerns but not the missing operational and parameter guidance.
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 0% and the description names no parameters. It does not explain what query syntax is expected, how mention_type should be expressed, what podcast_id default 'gooaye' means, or how limit and case_sensitive affect results. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific verb (搜尋/search) and names a concrete resource: 'SQLite cache 中的 deterministic mentions 與 timestamp evidence'. This makes the tool's object and scope reasonably clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search_transcripts, but the mention-vs-transcript distinction is implied.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_transcripts, extract_mentions, or rebuild_cache. No exclusions or conditions are provided, so an agent cannot easily decide whether this is the right search tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.