cautaSearch pages and articles (including drafts) by title, description, or content, and get the matching text fragment to quickly locate specific information.
Caută un text în titlul, descrierea și conținutul paginilor și articolelor (inclusiv ciorne). Întoarce și fragmentul găsit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tip | No | ||
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies the scope (including drafts) and the return value (fragment). Given that readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint are already present, the description's added detail is valuable and consistent.
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, compact sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It fronts the action and scope, with no wasted words. Structure is exemplary.
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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: search targets, inclusion of drafts, and return of fragment. It does not detail search semantics (case sensitivity, pagination, etc.) but these are not essential for basic use. The description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.
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 undocumented parameters. It does not mention 'text' or 'tip' explicitly. While it implies text search and mentions pages/articles (hinting at the enum), it fails to explain parameter meanings or usage. The description adds little beyond the schema itself.
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 action (search), the resource (title, description, content of pages and articles, including drafts), and the return value (the found fragment). It is specific enough to distinguish from other tool names like 'listeaza' or 'citeste'. No ambiguity.
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?
The description implies usage: search for text in content. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. Since no sibling tool serves a similar search function, the implied usage is acceptable but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.