Retrieve archived knowledge and browser history records by text query, using filters like domain, date range, and source to narrow results.
Search; bounded read-only archive retrieval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| url | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| app_id | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| domain | No | ||
| browser | No | ||
| profile | No | ||
| fidelity | No | ||
| source_id | No | ||
| provenance | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds 'bounded' and 'archive' context, implying constrained result sets and an archive-scoped read operation. It does not disclose pagination behavior, cursor semantics, or how filters are applied, but it is consistent with the 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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. A four-word clause cannot carry the necessary behavioral and parameter context for a tool of this complexity.
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?
With 14 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter explanations, the description is far from complete. It gives no sense of return values, pagination, filter semantics, or how to distinguish this tool from its siblings. The read-only annotation helps with safety but not with 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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining any of the 14 parameters, yet it names none. Even the single required parameter 'text' is not described. This is a critical gap for an agent trying to construct a valid call.
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 names a verb ('Search') and a broad resource ('archive'), and adds useful qualifiers ('bounded read-only'). However, it does not specify what exactly is searched, what is returned, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'query' or 'get_record'.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'query', 'get_record', or 'timeline'. No exclusions or selection conditions are provided. The read-only hint already comes from annotations, so the description adds no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.