freeq_searchFull-text search within one channel. Use this instead of paging history when you know roughly what was said. Same access rules as freeq_history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search terms. | |
| limit | No | How many matches to return. | |
| channel | Yes | Channel to search. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| messages | Yes |
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 signal readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the search is full-text, scoped to one channel, and shares access rules with freeq_history. It does not describe edge cases or result ordering, but the output schema reduces the need for that.
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?
Three short sentences each earn their place: purpose, usage guidance, and access-rule reference. The information is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition.
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 a complete input schema, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the important operational choices: which tool to use, what scope it operates on, and what access expectations to carry. The reference to freeq_history is reasonable within the sibling-tool context.
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 channel, q, and limit are already documented. The description does not add nuance about search syntax or limit behavior, so it neither improves nor harms the parameter understanding 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?
The description names a specific operation: full-text search within one channel. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting with 'paging history' and makes the scope explicit.
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?
It gives an explicit condition for use ('when you know roughly what was said') and names the alternative ('paging history'). This lets an agent decide between freeq_search and freeq_history without additional inference.
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 clearly distinct operation: channel discovery, message history, pinned context, full-text search, and signature verification. Even search and history, which both deal with messages, are separated cleanly by use case: querying versus paging.
All tools share a consistent lowercase `freeq_` prefix, making them easy to group. The minor deviation is that most names are resource nouns (`channels`, `history`, `pins`, `search`) while `verify` is an action verb, but the pattern remains predictable.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a focused read-only server: discover channels, read messages, read pins, search, and verify authorship. Each tool has a distinct purpose and none feel redundant or extraneous.
The tool surface covers the full intended workflow: finding a channel, reading its current context via pins, paging through history, searching for specific content, and verifying message authorship. No critical dead ends or obvious missing read operations are apparent for this domain.