Search across the documentation to fetch relevant content for a given query
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query. Should be a single word or that phrase that is presented in a documentation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no new behavioral traits. It does not contradict annotations. The description's claim of fetching content is consistent, but no extra context is provided.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Concise and front-loaded. Could be slightly more specific about the scope of 'relevant content', but overall efficient.
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?
Given simple schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return format, pagination, or behavior on no results, but for a straightforward search tool with good annotations, it meets minimum completeness.
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 covers 100% of the parameter (query) with minLength and description. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool searches documentation to fetch relevant content for a query. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on specific API details (get-endpoints, list-apis). However, it does not explicitly differentiate.
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 siblings. The description does not mention when-not-to-use or provide context for preferring alternative tools like get-endpoints for structured API info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of API documentation: listing APIs, retrieving endpoints, endpoint details, full description, security schemes, and search. No functional overlap.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list-apis, get-endpoints, etc.), but 'search' is a single verb, slightly breaking the pattern. Overall naming is clear and predictable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—comprehensive enough without being overwhelming. The number is appropriate for a documentation explorer.
The set covers listing APIs, endpoint details, full spec, security, and search. Minor gaps like endpoint filtering or version comparison exist, but core workflows are well-covered.