Search locally indexed onion pages to detect threat activity or exposed data. Filter results by collection time, not publication time, with the since parameter.
Search locally indexed onion pages. since filters collection time, not publication time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| since | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral caveat that annotations cannot express — that `since` filters collection time rather than publication time, which changes how an agent interprets results.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one subtle constraint. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity leaves gaps that more structure could have addressed.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the `since` clarification is valuable. Still missing: the expected format of `since`, the meaning of `limit`, and any query syntax expectations for a search tool.
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 carry the semantics. It explains only `since` (collection time vs publication time) and says nothing about query matching behavior or what `limit` controls, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both places.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Search locally indexed onion pages"), and the phrase "locally indexed" implicitly separates it from the live-looking sibling search_onion. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative or clarifying whether this searches a distinct corpus, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.
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 word "locally indexed" hints that this is the cache-backed path, but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-search_onion guidance and no stated prerequisites (index freshness, crawl state). Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.