Search for specific text across all volumes in the Digitale Bibliothek collection using basic text matching.
Search for text across volumes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| query | Yes | Search query (supports basic text matching) | |
| volume_id | No | Optional volume ID to search in (searches all if None) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search for text across volumes' without mentioning return format, case sensitivity, pagination, or any limitations. This leaves significant uncertainty about what the agent will get back.
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 description is a single sentence with no waste, but it is so brief that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It conveys the core action but omits useful context that would fit in a few more words.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool lacks any behavioral context such as search semantics, result ordering, or performance notes. For a search tool with three parameters, this is notably incomplete—an agent cannot predict how the query is interpreted or what the results will look like beyond the schema.
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%, so all parameters are documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. It doesn't clarify things like how 'query' is matched (e.g., exact vs. fuzzy).
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?
The description states a clear verb and resource ('Search for text across volumes'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_text_content and list_volumes. It is specific enough that an agent can tell this is the full-text search tool, though it doesn't mention scope like metadata vs. content.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no note about whether this should be used instead of get_text_content for retrieving specific content, or how it relates to volume navigation. An agent has to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.