Search across local documentation to return matching pages and snippets, enabling retrieval of relevant references by query, source, or result limit.
Search across all local documentation. Returns matching pages with snippets. Use this to find relevant documentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (default: 10) | |
| query | Yes | The search query | |
| sourceId | No | Optional: limit search to a specific source |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape ('matching pages with snippets'), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It says nothing about result ranking, whether all sources are searched by default, pagination, or permissions, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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 first two sentences are front-loaded and informative, but the third sentence ('Use this to find relevant documentation') is circular filler that duplicates the opening. The definition is short but not fully waste-free.
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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basics (what it searches, what it returns) but omits result ordering, default source scope, and any auth/permission notes. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, not complete.
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 100% (query, limit, sourceId all documented), so the schema already does the heavy lifting and a baseline 3 is appropriate. The phrase 'across all local documentation' implicitly clarifies that sourceId narrows scope rather than being required, but adds no further syntax or format detail.
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 and resource ('Search across all local documentation') and notes the scope ('local'), which separates it from remote/URL-based ingestion siblings. However, it never names or differentiates itself from the closest siblings such as docs_list or docs_read, so an 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?
The only guidance is 'Use this to find relevant documentation,' which simply restates the purpose rather than telling the agent when to choose this over docs_list or docs_read. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.