Search local OneMira C1 meeting transcripts, speaker-labeled segments, and OKF Markdown Wiki notes by keyword, speaker, decision, or topic to find relevant meeting context.
Search local OneMira C1 meeting transcripts, 99-language speaker-labeled segments, and OKF Markdown Wiki notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results to return | |
| query | Yes | Keywords, speaker name, decision, or topic to search across meetings and Wiki |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the whole burden, and it only identifies the data sources. It says nothing about read-only behavior, permissions, ranking, pagination, or what happens when multiple sources match.
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 with no filler and no repetition of the name. It is tight, though its extreme brevity leaves gaps rather than earning a 5.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to do more work than it does. It establishes the searched corpus but omits result shape, source mixing, and safety profile, which are the remaining unknowns for a two-parameter search tool.
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 both query and limit documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or format detail about the query beyond what the schema already states.
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?
Names a specific verb ("Search") plus the resource scope: OneMira C1 meeting transcripts, speaker-labeled segments, and OKF Markdown Wiki notes. That scope implicitly separates it from the narrower siblings mira_segments and mira_wiki_read, but it never explicitly contrasts with them, so it falls short of a 5.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description implies it is a broad cross-source lookup, but an agent is left to infer that versus mira_sessions, mira_segments, and mira_wiki_read from names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.