Find prior-art publications dated before the filing date for a specific episode. Use it to locate relevant references when evaluating or scoring a decision case.
Search the episode's prior-art library (publications dated before the filing date).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| episode_id | 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 bears the full behavioral burden. It discloses the date-scoping constraint (pre-filing publications), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, result format, or permissions.
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 efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too brief for a two-parameter search tool.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin to fully specify how to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the library's scope but leaves query semantics and return behavior entirely unaddressed.
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% for both required parameters. The description only implicitly maps 'episode' to episode_id and 'search' to query, adding no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail to compensate for the 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?
States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('episode's prior-art library'), with a parenthetical defining scope (publications before the filing date). This distinguishes it reasonably from the sibling search_rules, though it does not explicitly differentiate from read_publication.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_rules or read_publication. Usage is only inferable from the resource name; there are no stated conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.