Search OfficeNext live by 1–4 Russian keywords or project name to return candidate project links; break complex briefs into short queries. Results are unverified design matches.
Search OfficeNext live by 1-4 Russian keywords or project name. Returns candidate project links, not verified design matches. Break complex briefs into several short queries. No database/index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: results are unverified candidate links rather than confirmed design matches, and there is no database or index behind the search, which sets expectations about coverage and reliability.
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 short sentences, all front-loaded with the operation and the query constraint first, then the caveat about result quality, then the decomposition advice. Nothing is repeated or padded.
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 characterizes what comes back (candidate project links, not verified matches), which is the key thing an agent needs to avoid over-trusting results. The only gap is the unaddressed pagination parameters and the absence of explicit sibling routing.
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 carries the burden. It does add real meaning for the required 'query' parameter (1-4 Russian keywords or a project name), but 'page' and 'limit' are never mentioned, leaving two of three parameters explained only by their bare titles and defaults.
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 (search) and resource (OfficeNext references) plus the query vocabulary (1-4 Russian keywords or project name). It implicitly separates itself from a stored-index tool via 'No database/index', but never names the siblings read_reference or reference_sources, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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?
'Break complex briefs into several short queries' gives concrete query-shaping advice, and 'No database/index' implies a live-search context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance and no statement of when not to call it (e.g., once a project link is known, use read_reference instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.