search_documentsRun RAG searches on documents registered in rokadoc to retrieve relevant passages by query, tags, or space for answering questions.
rokadocに登録されたドキュメントに対してRAG検索を実行する
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | タグフィルタ（AND条件） | |
| query | Yes | 検索クエリ（1〜1000文字） | |
| space_id | No | スペースID | |
| space_name | No | スペース名（space_id が指定されている場合は無視されます） | |
| max_results | No | 最大取得件数（デフォルト: 3、最大: 5） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds that the search is RAG-based, which gives useful context about retrieval semantics, but it does not disclose result format, ranking behavior, or other operational constraints beyond the annotations.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While extremely concise, it is arguably undersized for a tool with five parameters and no output schema, but the sentence itself 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?
There is no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what RAG search returns (e.g., document passages or ranked results), but it does not. It also lacks usage context relative to sibling conversion tools, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent trying to select and interpret the tool.
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 the input schema already documents all five parameters including query, tags, space_id, space_name, and max_results. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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: execute RAG search against documents registered in rokadoc. The resource 'documents' differentiates it from the conversion-oriented siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives such as convert_document or list_conversions.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is that it searches documents, which is already evident from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.