Run targeted searches in Alfresco with sorting and filtering to retrieve content matching your criteria.
Advanced search with sorting and filtering capabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| sort_field | No | cm:modified | |
| max_results | No | ||
| sort_ascending | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / max_results / titleRemoved value: -"Max Results"Input schema / properties / query / titleRemoved value: -"Query"Input schema / properties / sort_ascending / titleRemoved value: -"Sort Ascending"Input schema / properties / sort_field / titleRemoved value: -"Sort Field"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"_WrappedResult"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does not mention result format, pagination behavior, authentication needs, performance implications, or what 'advanced' means operationally. The sentence merely restates the tool's advertised capability.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It front-loads no critical scoping information and every word adds minimal value.
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 four parameters, no annotations, multiple sibling search tools, and zero schema description coverage, this one-sentence description is far from complete. It does not clarify the search scope, available sort fields, result limits, or relationship to sibling search tools, so an agent lacks essential context for correct invocation.
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%, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. It only mentions sorting and filtering generically, leaving query, sort_field, max_results, and sort_ascending without added meaning beyond their names and schema defaults.
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 names a verb ('search') and indicates the capability ('sorting and filtering'), but it does not state what is being searched (content, metadata, or both). It is only slightly more informative than the tool name and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_content, search_by_metadata, or cmis_search.
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 given for when to use advanced_search versus the several sibling search tools. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, so an agent cannot determine which search tool fits a given request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.