docs-search-mcp

search_notes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find matching sections in local notes via BM25 keyword queries, returning snippets; read full notes when needed.

Instructions

Keyword-search (BM25) the notes. Returns the best matching sections with a snippet. Use read_note afterwards to see a whole file.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: BM25 keyword matching, snippet-level results rather than whole notes, and the need for read_note to get full files.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences with zero waste: action, return shape, and follow-up. The main verb is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, so the description needn't explain those. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the missing explanation of query syntax and limit semantics is a real gap for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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 for both parameters. It only hints that 'query' is a keyword search and says nothing about the 'limit' parameter (e.g., max results, default behavior), leaving the primary parameter semantics substantially undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with the search mechanism: 'Keyword-search (BM25) the notes.' It also clarifies the return granularity ('best matching sections with a snippet'), which distinguishes it from list_notes (browse all) and read_note (whole file). An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the alternative read_note and the condition for using it ('afterwards to see a whole file'), giving clear follow-up guidance. However, it does not state when to prefer search_notes over list_notes or when not to use it, leaving some sibling selection to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server