products_searchSearch product records by keyword across title and description fields. Returns matching items with price and stock; all query words must match, case-insensitively.
Keyword search over title, description in products (5 records; fields: sku, title, description, price, stock). All words must match (case-insensitive).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds the matching semantics that annotations cannot express: all words must match and matching is case-insensitive. It also discloses the tiny dataset size (5 records) and the stored fields. It stops short of explaining how limit behaves against a 5-record corpus.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the operation, then the scope, then the matching rule. Every clause carries information; only the parenthetical field list is mildly redundant with the output shape.
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?
With no output schema, the field list (sku, title, description, price, stock) usefully tells the agent what records look like. The only real gap is the undocumented limit parameter and its interplay with the 5-record dataset, which is minor for a read-only two-parameter tool.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains query semantics well (all-words match, case-insensitive) but says nothing about the limit parameter or that the default of 10 already exceeds the entire 5-record dataset.
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 (keyword search over products) and narrows the searched fields to title and description. It does not name the siblings products_list or products_get, but the search/list/get distinction is self-evident, so an agent can route without opening another schema.
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 implied by 'keyword search' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to products_list for enumerating the full catalog or products_get for retrieval by key. The agent must infer the boundary from the sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.