Search posts previously synced into the local keyword index by username and query, with an optional result limit to narrow returned matches.
Search posts previously synced into the local keyword index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| username | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does 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 discloses the sync dependency but says nothing about matching semantics (keyword vs substring), read-only safety, behavior on an empty or stale index, or result ordering — all material for a search tool.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.
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?
Three parameters with zero descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema leave the agent without essentials: which user's index is searched, how many results return, and what happens if nothing has been synced. The single sentence is not enough for this complexity.
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% and all three parameters (username, query, limit) are bare typed fields. The description mentions neither the required username scoping nor the limit cap of 50, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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) and a specific resource (posts in the local keyword index), and 'previously synced' scopes it away from a live API search. It stops short of naming velog_search_posts as the live counterpart, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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?
'Previously synced into the local keyword index' implies a prerequisite (content must have been synced first) and hints at the sync sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative such as velog_search_posts for live results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.