search_notesPerform full-text search across Markdown files in a connection to locate notes matching a query.
Full-text search across the Markdown files on a connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| connection | Yes | The connection id (from list_connections) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool performs full-text search, but it does not reveal what the result looks like (e.g., matching note IDs, snippets, relevance scores), whether results are paginated, or any performance implications. The read-only nature is implied but never stated.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's core purpose without any extraneous words. It is efficient and easy to parse.
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?
The tool is simple (2 required params, no nested objects), but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return format. It does not mention what the results contain, how they are ordered, or any limits. This leaves an agent unsure about how to interpret the response, making the definition incomplete.
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 describes 'connection' but leaves 'query' undocumented. The description adds meaning by indicating that the search is full-text, which clarifies that 'query' is a free-text search term. However, it does not specify syntax, case sensitivity, or wildcard support, so it only partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage gap.
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 ('full-text search'), a clear resource ('Markdown files'), and a scope ('on a connection'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_notes and read_note by focusing on content-based search.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. While the purpose is obvious from the name, the description does not proactively route the agent to or away from any sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.