Search through stored messages and summaries to find relevant information across your entire conversation history, enabling quick retrieval of past context for current tasks.
[LCM] 在消息和摘要中搜索
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | 搜索查询 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search' and offers no information about return format, matching semantics, result scoping, or side effects.
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 the action and target stated directly. There is no filler, and the necessary core information is front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description alone should clarify what the agent receives and how this tool relates to its siblings. The one-line description leaves search semantics and result behavior ambiguous.
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% for the single query parameter, so the schema already defines it adequately. The description adds only the target scope (messages and summaries) without additional syntax or constraints.
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 states that the tool searches within messages and summaries, which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from lcm_list_summaries (list vs search) but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use lcm_search rather than memvid_search or lcm_list_summaries. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.