Find issues by keyword in titles and descriptions, with optional filters for project and result limit.
Search issues by keyword
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (default: 20) | |
| keyword | Yes | Keyword to search for in title and description | |
| project_id | No | Optional: Limit search to specific project |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says search by keyword; it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, permissions, or what the response contains beyond the obvious. For a read operation this is a significant gap.
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 sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.
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 low complexity and full schema coverage, the definition is minimally adequate for invocation, but it leaves gaps: no usage context relative to sibling tools and no indication of what a result looks like, which matters because there is no output schema.
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 the schema already fully documents keyword, limit, and project_id. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Search') and resource ('issues') with the search field ('by keyword'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from sibling list_issues or explain how this differs from other issue-retrieval 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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives like list_issues or get_issue, nor does it state when a keyword search is preferable to browsing or fetching a single issue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.