Search custom properties using filters for name or type, with sorting and pagination to locate the exact properties needed.
Search Custom Properties. Filterable/sortable by: Name, TypeName.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Records to skip | |
| take | No | Records to return | |
| filter | No | OData-style filter, e.g. "Name eq 'X'" | |
| sortBy | No | Column to sort by | |
| sortOrder | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a read-only collection operation, but the description says nothing about return shape, pagination, default behavior, or side effects, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.
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 two compact sentences with the action front-loaded and the field list presented efficiently. There is no filler or redundant detail.
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 with optional pagination/filter/sort parameters, the description plus schema is largely sufficient for correct invocation. It still relies on 'Search' to imply that matching custom properties are returned because no output schema exists.
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 high, so skip/take/filter/sortOrder are already documented. The description adds value by naming the valid filter and sort fields (Name, TypeName), which the schema leaves unspecified.
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 identifies the action (Search), the resource (Custom Properties), and the key fields (Name, TypeName). It implicitly distinguishes itself from exact-lookup siblings like custom_properties_get_by_id, but does not explicitly contrast itself with related lookup variants.
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 filter/sort field list gives implied context for when this tool would be useful, but it never states when to prefer search over get_by_id or get_by_tpe_id, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage guidance is present only by inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.