Fetch search results for a given ID, listing peer files with size and bitrate so you can choose the correct file to download.
Get results for a search id. Lists peers and their files with size and bitrate. Use the exact filename and size when downloading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| formats | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior: retrieving peers and their files with size and bitrate, and hints that exact filename/size are needed for downloading. It does not explicitly state whether this operation is read-only, whether it can fail for expired search ids, or any pagination or filtering behavior related to the formats parameter.
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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds actionable detail about downstream usage. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value details may be covered there, but the description still leaves meaningful gaps: no guidance on the optional formats parameter, no differentiation from sibling search-related tools, and no stated behavior for invalid or missing search ids. For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations, this is 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the id parameter by calling it a 'search id,' and it implies the result contains filename and size values used for downloading. However, the formats parameter is completely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess whether it filters formats, defaults, or modifies output.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get results for a search id' and says it 'Lists peers and their files with size and bitrate.' It is not a tautology and conveys the core output. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like search, searches, browse, or download, so some differentiation is left to the name.
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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search, browse, or downloads. The phrase 'for a search id' implies a precondition, but it does not say 'after running search, use this to retrieve results' or 'when browsing peers/files, use browse instead.' The final sentence about downloading gives downstream advice but no selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.