Skip to main content
Glama
Beeswax Shares MCP Server

Beeswax Shares MCP Server

by steamau

Search help articles

search_help
Read-only

Search Beeswax Shares help articles by keyword to locate guidance on holdings, transactions, bank feeds, tax and more, returning slugs and titles for retrieval.

Instructions

Search the Beeswax Shares in-app help articles (getting started, holdings, transactions, bank feeds, scenarios, tax, true ROI, glossary…). Returns slug, title, summary and the page keys (from find_page) each article explains. Omit query to list every article. Read one with get_help.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_help"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoWords to search for; all must appear in the article

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.8.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes further by naming the exact return shape (slug, title, summary, page keys) and the behavior when query is omitted. It doesn't state ordering or matching semantics, which keeps it below 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then return values, then the omit and follow-up guidance. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies topics, return fields, default behavior, and the read-a-result path. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the response.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines query as "Words to search for; all must appear in the article." The description adds only the omit-behavior, so it sits at the documented baseline rather than adding rich semantic detail.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ("Search the Beeswax Shares in-app help articles") and scopes it with the topic list in parentheses. It is unmistakably distinguished from every sibling, which are all financial-data tools rather than help content.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Omit query to list every article" gives an explicit calling mode, and "Read one with get_help" routes the agent to the correct follow-up tool. It falls short of a 5 because the relationship to the sibling find_page is only mentioned parenthetically (page keys come from find_page) without saying when search_help is preferable to find_page.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools