Run full-text queries across synced AnkiWeb flashcard data using FTS5 syntax; sync first. Returns matching records faster than paging through list endpoints.
Full-text search across all synced data. Faster than paginating list endpoints. Requires sync first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 25) | |
| query | Yes | Search query (supports FTS5 syntax: AND, OR, NOT, quotes for phrases) |
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=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of context annotations cannot express: the sync prerequisite and the relative cost versus pagination. Return shape and result ordering remain undisclosed, which keeps it below a 5.
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, zero filler, with purpose front-loaded and the prerequisite following. Every sentence carries distinct information.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the two non-obvious facts an agent needs: search requires a prior sync, and it beats paginating lists. The only shortfall is the unaddressed overlap with sibling search tools.
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%, with the query parameter already documenting FTS5 syntax (AND, OR, NOT, phrases) and limit documenting its default of 25. The description adds nothing beyond 'full-text search', so baseline 3 applies.
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 operation: full-text search over all synced data. The resource scope ('all synced data') is clear enough to distinguish it from list/pagination endpoints, but the description never clarifies how it differs from sibling search tools like card_search or shared_search, so an agent cannot be certain which search surface to pick.
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?
Offers an implied preference ('Faster than paginating list endpoints') and a prerequisite ('Requires sync first'), which is more than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use and no routing against the several sibling search tools (card_search, shared_search, recall, sql), leaving the key selection decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.