search_notesFind relevant notes in a vault using hybrid keyword and semantic search; get matching paths, headings, and snippets, then open full content with read_note.
Search the vault with hybrid keyword + semantic search. Returns note paths, headings, and snippets. Use read_note for full content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Search mode (default hybrid) | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 8) | |
| query | Yes | Natural-language or keyword query |
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=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral content beyond that: the hybrid keyword+semantic retrieval model and the shape of results (paths, headings, snippets), which tells the agent it gets excerpts, not full documents. Ranking, pagination, and result-ordering behavior are not described.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then what it returns, then the follow-up routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with zero repetition of the schema.
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 read-only search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, retrieval mechanism, and return shape, which is sufficient to call it correctly. It leaves out ranking/ordering behavior and whether results are truncated by the limit, minor gaps for this complexity level.
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 100%, with each of query, mode, and limit documented in the schema including the enum and defaults. The description's mention of hybrid keyword+semantic implicitly signals the mode values but adds no syntax, formatting, or query-construction guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource (search the vault) plus the mechanism (hybrid keyword + semantic search), and explicitly distinguishes itself from read_note by scoping itself to discovery and routing full-content reads elsewhere.
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 line 'Use read_note for full content' gives a clear alternative for the follow-up step, implying this tool is for locating notes. It does not address when to prefer search_notes over list_notes, recent_activity, or build_context, so sibling routing is only partially covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.