knowledge_searchSearch project-specific knowledge by title and body to retrieve source, privacy level, version, hash, and snippet for auditable context.
只在指定项目中搜索知识标题和正文，返回来源、隐私级别、版本、哈希和片段。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns source, privacy, version, hash, and snippet, which is useful but not behavioral beyond the declared read-only nature. No additional constraints like pagination or sorting are disclosed, so the description adds modest value.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The scope constraint is stated first, and the return fields are listed concisely. Excellent efficiency.
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 simple read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and return fields. It misses the optional 'limit' parameter and does not explicitly state that 'project_id' is required, but these are available in the schema. Given low complexity, the description is nearly complete.
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 mentions the project scope and the search target (title and body) but does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. It does not clarify query semantics (e.g., exact phrase vs. partial). Partial compensation is present but incomplete.
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 verb (search) and resource (knowledge title and body) scoped to a specified project. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like knowledge_ingest (which ingests) and project_get (which retrieves project details).
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 phrase '只在指定项目中' establishes the context of searching within a single project, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives. Since there is no other search tool among siblings, the guidance is implicit rather than explicit, leaving some ambiguity about fallback options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.