Search Scalekit documentation by keyword to find answers when no specific doc resource applies. Enter a query to locate relevant guides and references.
Search Scalekit documentation by keyword. Prefer reading docs:// resources directly — use this tool only when no specific docs:// resource clearly covers the topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects (if any) exist, or what the response format looks like. While searching is typically non-mutating, the description fails to explicitly confirm this, leaving a gap for an agent that cannot infer safety.
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, zero fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage caveat is delivered in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and when to use it. However, it omits any information about the return format (e.g., list of doc links, snippets, relevance ordering) or any limitations like result count or pagination. For a search tool, this is a notable gap that could lead to incorrect expectations.
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?
The input schema provides no description for the query parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only says 'by keyword,' which barely adds meaning beyond the schema's type and minLength. It does not explain what constitutes a valid query, whether it supports full-text search, or any format constraints, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 clearly states the action (Search), the resource (Scalekit documentation), and the mechanism (by keyword). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning itself as a fallback when no docs:// resource covers the topic, which differentiates it from other search tools like search_connectors or search_tools.
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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer reading docs:// resources directly, and use this tool only when no specific docs:// resource clearly covers the topic. This gives clear direction and implicitly states when not to use it, which is ideal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.