search_my_knowledgeSearch connected documents, notes, and pages, and get the passages that match your query. Use it to find stored information without leaving your local machine.
Search documents, notes, and pages the user connected to Toskar, and return the passages that match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many passages, up to 20. Default 5. | |
| query | Yes | What to look for. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and scope profile is covered. The description adds that only user-connected content is searched and that passages are returned, but does not discuss ranking, limits, or empty-result behavior beyond what the schema states.
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 well-formed sentence with the action, resources, scope, and result type front-loaded. There is no filler and nothing is buried.
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 simple read-only search tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and two parameters, the description is nearly complete. Minor gaps are the lack of explicit sibling routing and anything about result ordering or behavior when no passages match.
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 100%, so both query and limit are already documented (including the up-to-20 cap and default of 5). The description says 'return the passages that match' but adds no format or interpretation detail beyond the schema.
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 resources (documents, notes, pages), plus the scope (connect to Toskar) and return shape (matching passages). It is clearly distinct from list_local_models and ask_local_ai in substance, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the phrasing 'search ... the user connected to Toskar,' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus ask_local_ai, which is the most plausible alternative for question answering. An agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.