Skip to main content
Glama

检索历史任务内容

dsh_search
Read-only

Search recorded task final outputs and tool results for a case-insensitive substring, returning matching tasks and context snippets to help locate prior execution details.

Instructions

在已记录任务的最终输出与工具结果里做子串检索,返回匹配任务与上下文片段。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "dsh_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo最多返回多少条,默认 20
queryYes检索词(大小写不敏感)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already guarantee readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral scope: only final outputs and tool results are indexed, matching is substring-based, and the return payload is matched tasks plus context snippets — which matters because there is no output schema to explain the return shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the search corpus and then states the return value, with no filler or restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers corpus, matching mode, and return shape adequately. Minor residual gaps are ranking/ordering of matches and whether limit truncates silently, but nothing blocks a correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both query (case-insensitive search term) and limit (max results, default 20, range 1-50) fully documented in the schema. The description mentions neither parameter nor adds syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (子串检索, substring search) and a specific corpus (已记录任务的最终输出与工具结果, recorded tasks' final outputs and tool results), so an agent can tell this apart from fetch-style siblings like dsh_result or dsh_read_result. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to any of the twelve siblings. An agent must infer from the phrase 'recorded tasks' that this is a retrospective search rather than a live-status or single-result fetch, which is real inference rather than stated routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.