search_wintSearch suppliers, customers, employees, articles, invoices, and receipts by name or number, optionally within one company, to locate bookkeeping records.
Search suppliers, customers, employees, articles, invoices and receipts by name or number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| company | No | Company id or name; may be omitted with one company |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds scope (which entity types) but does not clarify matching behavior, result limits, or whether all entity types are always searched.
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?
A single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and scope with no wasted words.
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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The remaining gaps are usage routing and result behavior, which are minor given the structured metadata.
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 50%: company is documented in the schema, while query is undocumented there. The description supplies query semantics ('by name or number'), which partially compensates, but it says nothing about the company parameter and its interaction with the optional company filter.
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 enumerates the resources searched: suppliers, customers, employees, articles, invoices, receipts. It is meaningfully distinct from single-record get_* tools and list_* tools, though it does not explicitly name siblings.
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 phrase 'by name or number' implies when to use this over listing tools, but it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative routing. An agent must infer that this is for lookup-based queries across entity types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.