Enhanced Grok Search MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'comprehensive analysis mode for detailed insights,' which hints at enhanced output, but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., search results format, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs). For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful detail about analysis mode without redundancy. Both sentences earn their place, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key features.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and behavioral traits like rate limits or permissions. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate more to guide effective use, but it falls short.

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 beyond the schema: it mentions 'comprehensive analysis mode' which aligns with the 'analysis_mode' parameter's enum, but doesn't provide additional context like use cases or examples. 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: 'Search general web content using Grok.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('general web content'), and mentions 'comprehensive analysis mode for detailed insights' to differentiate it from basic search. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'grok_news_search' or 'grok_search', which likely have overlapping functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'comprehensive analysis mode' but doesn't explain when to choose this over basic mode or how it compares to sibling tools like 'grok_news_search' or 'grok_search'. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, leaving usage context unclear.

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