eva_buscar_materialesSearch EVA course resources, assignments, and documents by keyword, with optional course filtering and a configurable result limit.
Busca recursos, consignas y documentos en EVA por palabra clave.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Término de búsqueda (1-100 caracteres) | |
| limite | No | Máximo de resultados a devolver (por defecto 25) | |
| curso_id | No | ID del curso (opcional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.8Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / curso_id / exclusiveMinimumRemoved value: -0Input schema / properties / curso_id / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / curso_id / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limiteAdded value: +{
+ "default": 25,
+ "description": "Máximo de resultados a devolver (por defecto 25)",
+ "maximum": 200,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "query": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "resultados": {
- "type": "array"
- },
- "total": {
- "type": "number"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "query",
- "resultados",
- "total"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv1.0.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds the scope of indexed content types, but says nothing about result ranking, result volume, or whether search spans all courses when curso_id is omitted — useful context for an open-world search tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource scope precedes the mechanism. It is near-minimal but does not waste 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?
For a 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It leaves unanswered whether the search is global by default, how results are ordered, and how it relates to eva_contenido_curso, which an agent would want before choosing it.
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 three parameters (query, limite, curso_id) are fully documented in the schema including bounds and defaults. The description adds no extra semantics such as search syntax, accent handling, or what narrowing by curso_id actually filters.
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 (busca) and resource set (recursos, consignas y documentos) plus the retrieval mechanism (por palabra clave). This clearly separates it from browse-style siblings like eva_contenido_curso or eva_materias, though it does not name them explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: keyword search is the natural signal, so an agent can infer it is for targeted lookups rather than full enumeration. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to eva_contenido_curso for course-scoped browsing, which is the main ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.