mendeley_search_document_textSearch an attached PDF for literal, case-insensitive phrases. Returns bounded passages with 1-based page numbers and source metadata.
Find literal, case-insensitive phrases in an attached PDF. Returns bounded passages with 1-based PDF page numbers and source metadata. No OCR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| document_id | Yes | ||
| context_chars | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses matching semantics (literal, case-insensitive), the shape of results (bounded passages with 1-based page numbers and source metadata), and a hard limitation (no OCR). It omits auth/permission requirements and pagination or result-count behavior, so it is not fully complete.
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?
Three tight sentences with no filler, and the core action plus its matching semantics are front-loaded before the return-shape and limitation notes.
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 output schema, the description usefully summarizes what comes back (passages, 1-based page numbers, source metadata) and flags the no-OCR boundary. It remains thin on the two numeric tuning parameters, which are undocumented in both schema and prose.
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%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It clarifies the query semantics (literal, case-insensitive) and hints at bounding via 'bounded passages', but never distinguishes limit from context_chars or states their defaults, leaving half the parameter surface unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb (find) and resource (literal phrases in an attached PDF), with a clear scope distinction from a metadata search. It never names the sibling it complements (mendeley_get_document_text for full text) or the library-wide search, so the agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.
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 'in an attached PDF' and the negative constraint 'No OCR' usefully excludes scanned documents, which is a partial when-not signal. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over mendeley_get_document_text or mendeley_search_library.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.