spicyapi_docs_searchSearch verified first-party documentation URLs by query to find official API references and guides for spicyapi-mcp. Returns matching results from a bundled index.
Search the bundled index of verified first-party documentation URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive). The description adds valuable scope context: it is limited to a 'bundled index' and 'verified first-party' URLs, indicating a closed-world search rather than open web search. This is useful behavioral information beyond annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It immediately states the verb and the resource, making it highly scannable and concise.
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?
The tool is simple and has an output schema that presumably covers return values. However, the description omits any detail about how to use the parameters or what the search scope entails beyond 'bundled index'. While not critical for a basic search tool, the lack of parameter explanation and any edge-case notes makes it slightly incomplete.
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 must explain parameters. It does not mention 'query' or 'limit' at all. While the parameters are relatively simple, the description provides no meaning beyond the schema's type/default information, failing to compensate for the coverage 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 a specific action ('Search') applied to a specific resource ('the bundled index of verified first-party documentation URLs'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like service status, model listing, or task management, making it unambiguous.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions that would make this tool the preferred choice. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.