Rename search tool to search_note

[phernandez]

Feature Description

Claude gets confused when tools from multiple MCP servers have the same name. The search tool should be renamed to search_note to make it more unique.

Problem This Feature Solves

• Less confusing for Claude to pick a tool
• Fewer problems for users running another MCP with a "search" tool

[diggy]

I'm late to the party, but this change might not be sufficient to prevent conflicts with other MCP tools (especially other note taking MCP servers). Namespacing or renaming could help:

• bm_search_note
• bm:search_note
• search_memory

Here's what our friend Claude has to say:

To avoid conflicts in MCP tools (like with search functionality), here are the best practices:

### Naming Conventions
- Use descriptive, unique names for your tools
- Prefix tool names with a domain or namespace (e.g., `google_search` vs `bing_search`)
- Follow camelCase or snake_case consistently across all tools
- Avoid generic names like just "search" that could conflict with other tools

### Official Documentation Best Practices
- Each tool should have a clear, unique `name` field
- Provide comprehensive `description` fields that specify the tool's exact purpose
- Use the `parameters` section to clearly define required and optional parameters
- Include proper JSON schema definitions for all parameters
- Document expected return formats thoroughly

When multiple tools have similar functionality (like different search providers), make sure to clearly differentiate them in both the name and description to avoid confusion and conflicts during execution.

[phernandez]

I agree that this is an area that could be improved in the mcp spec. The closest issue I could find about it right now is modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol#128.

I don't know why the spec doesn't have namespaces for tool calling by default. "search_notes" bay not have been the best name, maybe "search_memory" or would have been better, but having to do "bm_search_notes" seems like a work around to a problem the protocol should address. We will see how this goes. I'm open to naming things however they need to be so that things "just work".