Search the codebase knowledge graph with hybrid keyword and vector search to retrieve ranked symbols matching your query.
Search the knowledge graph using hybrid (keyword + vector) search. Returns ranked symbols matching the query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (default 20). | |
| query | Yes | Search query text. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious trait — that matching is hybrid keyword + vector rather than plain substring — and that results are ranked, but it omits read-only confirmation, ranking/scoring semantics, and any result-count or truncation behavior beyond the limit parameter.
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 mechanism, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the essentials (mechanism, ranked return), but it leaves the agent unable to decide between this and sibling search tools and says nothing about what a returned 'symbol' contains.
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% (query text, limit with default 20), so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no query syntax, matching-mode, or limit-interaction detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (search) plus resource (knowledge graph) and even the retrieval mechanism (hybrid keyword + vector), and names the return type (ranked symbols). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from near-neighbors like axon_pro_search_code or axon_pro_cypher, which an agent could plausibly pick instead.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives despite 15 siblings including several other search/retrieval tools. The agent must infer that this is the semantic/hybrid graph search while search_code and cypher exist for other cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.