outline_searchSearch documents by full-text query in Outline workspaces. Filter by collection and paginate results with limit and offset.
Full-text search across documents. Args: query (string), collectionId (optional), limit, offset. Returns: matching documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (1-100) | |
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| offset | No | Results to skip, for pagination | |
| collectionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it says "Returns: matching documents" but omits ranking behavior, pagination semantics for limit/offset, and result ordering, despite this being a paginated search.
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 sentences, front-loaded purpose, no filler. The "Args:" restatement is mildly redundant with the schema but not bloated.
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 four-parameter, fully-annotated search tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It leaves gaps around sibling disambiguation and pagination/ranking behavior that an agent would need to call it confidently.
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 75%, so most parameters are self-documenting. The description merely restates the args (query string, collectionId optional, limit, offset), adding only the "optional" flag on collectionId, which is already implied by the required list. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
"Full-text search across documents" states a clear verb+resource, so the agent instantly knows the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from the very similar sibling tools (outline_list_documents, outline_list_collection_documents), which an agent could easily confuse with a search.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus browsing tools like list_documents, nor any note on when collectionId should be supplied. Usage is only implied by the word "search".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.