Search Alfresco content using AFTS queries to locate files and documents. Filter by node type and set a maximum number of results for targeted retrieval.
Search for content in Alfresco using AFTS query language.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| node_type | No | ||
| max_results | 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 / node_type / titleRemoved value: -"Node Type"Input schema / properties / query / titleRemoved value: -"Query"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 bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches content; it does not mention that the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, or whether special permissions or repository context are required.
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 a single concise sentence with no extraneous words. It gets directly to the point and is easy to parse quickly.
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?
The tool has 3 parameters and no annotations, and the description fails to explain the purpose of the optional parameters or any usage constraints. Although an output schema exists and the search concept is familiar, the missing parameter semantics and lack of behavioral context leave the description incomplete for confident 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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only to the 'query' parameter by identifying it as an AFTS query. The 'node_type' and 'max_results' parameters are not described at all, leaving their semantics to be guessed from parameter names.
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 a specific action ('Search for content') and a specific resource ('Alfresco') with a concrete method ('AFTS query language'). This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like cmis_search and search_by_metadata, which use different search mechanisms.
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 the tool via the mention of 'AFTS query language', suggesting it is for AFTS-based queries rather than metadata or CMIS searches. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion criteria, so an agent must infer the appropriate choice from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.