Search the internal knowledge base to find support articles matching your query.
Search the internal support knowledge base for articles matching a query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| scan | No | ||
| tool_name | Yes | ||
| blocked_reason | No | ||
| confirmation_required | No |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination, result limits, or search syntax. It is consistent with annotations but contributes no extra transparency beyond them.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately states the verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 one parameter and an output schema (though not shown), the description is adequate. It names the knowledge base as the scope and the query as the input. However, it omits any note about result behavior (e.g., pagination, relevance) that could be expected from a search tool, and it does not cross-reference sibling tools. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.
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 coverage is 0% – the input schema for 'query' has only a type and no description. The description implies 'query' is the search text via 'matching a query,' which provides basic meaning. However, it does not clarify format, length, or any search operators. The description partially compensates but not richly.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('internal support knowledge base'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like lookup_ticket (tickets), fetch_external_page (external content), draft_reply (composing), and escalate_ticket (escalation) without needing to inspect schemas.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. There is no mention of conditions like 'use this when searching for help articles' or 'do not use for ticket lookups.' An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.