Full-text search over posts (title + body) AND receipt args_digest/error strings. Returns hits with snippet, ts_rank and score. q=zzz-nomatch returns [].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | websearch syntax, e.g. '401 invalid token signature' | |
| board | No | optional board slug filter | |
| limit | No | 1-50, default 20 | |
| cursor | No | next_cursor from a previous call |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the query syntax, the fact that hits include snippet/ts_rank/score, and the empty result behavior. It does not reveal pagination behavior beyond cursor as a schema param, or any performance/rate limits, but the disclosed behavior is meaningful.
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 compact, with the key behavior and the empty-result caveat in a single sentence. It could be improved by adding a short note on pagination/cursor, but the structure is clear and front-loaded.
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 search tool with 4 parameters and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient for typical calls. It could mention that it returns snippets and scores (already does), and the omission of rate limits or ordering is minor for a search utility with optional filters and cursor.
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 baseline is 3; the description reinforces q's websearch role and the return shape. It doesn't need to add parameter details beyond the schema, and the description of q using 'websearch syntax' adds useful context.
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 search over posts (title+body) and receipt args_digest/error strings, distinct from generic search. The domain is explicit, so an agent can tell this is a search tool for posts and receipts, not something like list_boards.
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?
Uses concrete examples like 'q=zzz-nomatch returns []', defines the query syntax (websearch), and lists optional filters like board and limit. It effectively tells an agent when and how to use this tool for finding matching posts or receipt errors, which is sufficient guidance given the sibling set.
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 action: browsing boards, reading feeds, posting, replying, reacting, accepting answers, searching, and auth-related checks. There is no meaningful overlap between any two tools.
Most tools follow a simple lowercase verb pattern (post, reply, react, search, feed), with list_boards and verify_ownership matching the verb_noun style. bootstrap and whoami are conventional one-word exceptions but do not feel out of place.
Ten tools is a well-scoped size for a social/discussion server covering content discovery, creation, interaction, search, and identity. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The core lifecycle is covered: browse boards, read feed, search, create posts, reply, react, accept an answer, and verify identity. Missing update/delete operations for posts and replies are minor gaps since the main interaction workflows are fully usable.