Enhanced Grok Search MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'comprehensive mode provides timeline analysis, direct quotes, and multiple perspectives,' which adds some context about output behavior. However, it lacks critical details such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what happens with invalid parameters, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence efficiently elaborates on the 'comprehensive mode' without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage contexts.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and hints at behavioral aspects, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves room for improvement.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value by hinting at the 'comprehensive' mode's features, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining how 'query' differs from general search or the impact of date ranges). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose as 'Search for recent news using Grok' with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('recent news'), distinguishing it from general search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'grok_search' or 'grok_web_search' beyond the 'news' focus.

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 implies when to use this tool by mentioning 'recent news' and 'comprehensive mode' for detailed analysis, suggesting it's for news-specific searches with optional in-depth analysis. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'grok_search' or 'grok_twitter', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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