mcp-cisco-support

Smart Search Strategy Advisor

smart_search_strategy

Analyze search queries and suggest optimal approaches for finding bugs based on input patterns and context.

Instructions

Analyzes search queries and suggests optimal search approaches based on input patterns. Provides strategic guidance for finding bugs effectively.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query_description": "<query_description>"
    },
    "name": "smart_search_strategy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`search_context`	No	Context for the search (incident, upgrade planning, maintenance, security review)
`query_description`	Yes	Describe what you want to search for (e.g., "ISR4431 version 17.09.06 high severity bugs")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Removedv1.11.1Apr 30, 2026
Addedv1.8.1Apr 30, 2026
Removedv1.7.0Apr 30, 2026
First observedAug 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It only states the basic function, leaving the agent uninformed about what happens during analysis.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (two sentences, ~21 words) and front-loaded with the key action. No filler, but could be slightly expanded for more clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without an output schema, the description does not specify the return value format or structure. For a tool that 'suggests optimal search approaches,' this is a significant gap that hampers agent understanding of what to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context that the query_description is analyzed for patterns, but this does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly indicates the tool analyzes search queries and suggests optimal approaches, distinguishing it from sibling direct-search tools. It specifies the resource ('search queries') and the action ('suggests optimal search approaches'). However, it could be more explicit about the output format.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 the many sibling search tools. It implies use for strategic guidance, but lacks explicit conditions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.