tasq

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_references

Search URLs extracted from task descriptions with fuzzy matching on URL and anchor text. Narrow results by query, domain, or task ID.

Instructions

Search URLs extracted from task descriptions (fuzzy on url + anchor).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_references"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`domain`	No
`task_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'fuzzy on url + anchor', which is useful, but does not explain return format, pagination, case sensitivity, or the relationship between the search corpus and task descriptions. Minimal behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and behavior, and every word contributes meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions), this description is too thin. It fails to explain how parameters affect the search, what 'fuzzy' matching entails in practice, or what output consumers can expect (even with an output schema, the search semantics are unspecified). The tool is underspecified for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% — the description does not explain any of the four parameters (limit, query, domain, task_id). While some parameters are self-explanatory (e.g., limit), the function of query relative to url/anchor, and the roles of domain and task_id, are left unspecified. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Search'), the specific resource ('URLs extracted from task descriptions'), and the matching behavior ('fuzzy on url + anchor'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search_tasks by focusing on references/URLs rather than tasks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by specifying the resource (URLs from task descriptions), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. The distinction from search_tasks is implicit rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.