search_wikiLocate knowledge base pages by keyword, returning page names and excerpts to identify the correct topic when unsure which page applies.
Search Finn's knowledge base by keyword. Returns matching page names and excerpts. Use when unsure which page covers a topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search keyword (e.g. "marginal relief", "employment allowance", "flat rate scheme") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It usefully discloses the return content ('page names and excerpts'), but does not discuss edge cases such as empty results, ranking, or matching semantics. No contradiction with annotations.
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 three short sentences, each with distinct value: the operation, the output, and the appropriate usage. There is no redundancy or filler, and the core action is front-loaded.
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 no output schema, the description covers the action, the result, and when to use it. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly clarify the corpus boundary relative to sibling tools like search_company_wiki, but 'Finn's knowledge base' provides reasonable anchoring.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter, including concrete examples. The description's phrase 'by keyword' adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Finn's knowledge base') and explicitly notes the output ('page names and excerpts'). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and scope, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like search_company_wiki or search_documents, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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 gives a clear usage context: 'Use when unsure which page covers a topic.' This tells an agent the appropriate scenario for invoking the tool)Skip. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.