Find relevant notes across the shared brain using semantic or full-text matching. Retrieve specific information from past sessions to support current tasks.
Semantic (or FTS) search over all notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| k | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'search' is consistent. However, the description adds no additional behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits or result size limits. With annotations covering the main point, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.
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?
The description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter usage and output format. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a search tool, more context on result scope or ordering would improve completeness.
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 does not explain the parameters 'query' or 'k'. The description only states the purpose without adding any meaning to the input parameters. The agent must infer parameter semantics from names alone, which is insufficient.
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?
Description clearly states it performs semantic or full-text search over all notes. The verb 'search' and resource 'all notes' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling search tools like 'dialog_search' or 'search_via_parent', but the scope 'all notes' provides differentiation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases. The agent receives no hints about when this is preferable to other search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.