Search LangLa server protocol docs to find MSG IDs, field names, ports, symptoms, and packet field ordering instead of guessing wire packets.
Tìm chuỗi trong toàn bộ docs (MSG, tên field, triệu chứng).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Chuỗi tìm, vd. MSG 62, writeLong, gia tộc, −88 | |
| max_hits | No | Mặc định 40 |
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 burden. It discloses that the search spans the whole docs corpus and lists the kinds of content matched, but says nothing about result ordering, result caps (beyond the schema's max_hits), or read-only nature. For a low-risk read tool this is adequate but thin.
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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than being exemplary.
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 read-only search with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose and searchable content. It omits return shape and result behavior, but nothing critical blocks a correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'query' and 'max_hits' are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's examples (MSG, field name, symptom) loosely reinforce what the query accepts but add no format/syntax detail beyond the schema.
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 ('Tìm' = search) and resource ('toàn bộ docs') plus the scope (entire docs corpus). It distinguishes itself from read_doc/list_docs by the verb, but never explicitly names or contrasts with those 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 parenthetical (MSG, field names, symptoms) implies when the tool is useful, i.e. free-text lookup across docs. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of the alternatives (read_doc, get_msg, list_docs).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.