searchFull-text (BM25) search across all essays, book chapters, and field notes. Returns ranked matches with a snippet, id, and canonical URL. Pass an id to get_document to read the full text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search terms | |
| section | No | Restrict to one content type |
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?
Discloses BM25 ranking, read-only operation (consistent with readOnlyHint), and return structure. No output schema, so description compensates well. Does not mention pagination or sorting, but not critical for a search tool.
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?
Two sentences with no extra words. First sentence states operation and output; second sentence gives actionable next step. Highly 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 no output schema, description adequately describes return format (ranked matches with snippet, id, URL). Mentions algorithm and scope. Provides guidance to get_document. Complete for a search 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 coverage is 100%, so description adds limited value beyond schema. Mentions scope ('across all essays, book chapters, field notes') which contextualizes the section parameter. 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?
Clearly states it performs full-text (BM25) search across specified content types (essays, book chapters, field notes). Specifies return fields (snippet, id, canonical URL). Distinct from siblings like get_document which retrieves a single document by id.
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?
Tells when to use it (for full-text search) and hints at a follow-up action (use get_document for full text). Does not explicitly differentiate from other tools like list_corpus or list_projects, but purpose is clear.
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 resource or action: documents, operant results, profile, repo profiles, corpus listing, project listing, repo profile listing, and full-text search. No overlap in functionality.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search), with 'search' being a lone verb but still clear. Minor inconsistency: 'list_corpus' uses singular 'corpus' but lists multiple items.
8 tools is well-scoped for a portfolio site, covering profile, documents, projects, repo profiles, and search without being excessive or insufficient.
Covers core read-only functionalities: profile, documents, projects, repo profiles, and search. Missing a dedicated 'get_project' tool, but list_projects provides sufficient detail for the portfolio context.