search_nodesFind canvas nodes by name, kind, or text using ranked search results that return IDs, names, and match snippets.
Search node names, kinds and text with hive's own Search ranking (name matches first). Returns ids, names and a snippet around the match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 20. | |
| query | Yes | ||
| types | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the ranking order (name matches first) and the shape of the result (ids, names, and a snippet around the match). It does not discuss case sensitivity or query syntax, but for a simple search tool this is solid added context.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose and ranking behavior are front-loaded, and the return summary follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.
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 appropriately explains returned fields, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a 3-parameter tool with low schema coverage, it leaves the types parameter unclear and does not position the tool against enumeration alternatives like list_nodes or get_nodes.
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 coverage is only 33%, with just the limit parameter described as 'Default 20.' The description does not explain the required query parameter or the types array. 'Search node names, kinds and text' suggests what is searched but does not clarify that types filters results by node kind, leaving one parameter effectively undocumented.
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 (node names, kinds, text), and adds a distinctive ranking detail (name matches first). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_nodes or get_nodes, keeping it just short of a 5.
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 the tool is for finding nodes by text, name, or kind, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives such as list_nodes for enumeration, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.