Full-text search the Medius docs. Returns ranked pages with a snippet; follow up with get_page for the full Markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results (default 10, max 50). | |
| query | Yes | Search terms. |
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes output (ranked pages with snippets) but omits explicit statement that it is read-only or safe. Acceptable 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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers functionality, output format, and next steps.
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%, providing baseline 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., 'ranked pages with snippet' is context, not param-level detail).
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 full-text search of Medius docs, returns ranked pages with snippets, and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_page by suggesting follow-up for full Markdown.
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?
Explicitly describes when to use this tool (searching docs) and implies when to use get_page (for full content). No explicit 'when not to use', but context 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.
Tools are mostly distinct: list_pages and search/search_docs serve different entry points, and fetch/get_page retrieve by id vs path. However, the presence of two search tools and two retrieval tools could cause mild confusion, though descriptions clarify intended workflows.
Naming is inconsistent: mix of verb-only (fetch, search) and verb_noun (get_page, list_pages, search_docs). No consistent pattern, and 'fetch' vs 'get_page' feel arbitrary.
With 5 tools, the server covers essential doc operations (list, search, read). Slightly more than minimal, but reasonable for a documentation server.
Core operations are covered: listing all pages, searching, and retrieving full content. Minor gap: no tool for browsing by section or getting metadata only, but generally complete.
