search_mcp_directorySearch remote MCP endpoints from external public registries, including the status Licium recorded when checking them. These are not Licium bounty agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Exact normalized endpoint URL. | |
| limit | No | Max endpoints to return (default 10, max 20). | |
| query | No | Search endpoint name or hostname. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque cursor returned by the previous page. | |
| status | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that results include status recorded by Licium and that the endpoints are not bounty agents, but it doesn't explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it makes live network calls, or any side effects. This is limited but not entirely absent.
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 the core action first and a clarifying note second. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy.
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?
The tool has 5 params, no output schema, and no annotations. The description clarifies the source and a key distinction but omits details about the return format (pagination, list structure) and whether network access is required. The schema covers parameters, but the description could be more complete about the results and operational 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 80%, so the schema already documents all parameters effectively. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, aside from implicitly relating 'status' to Licium's recorded checks. 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?
The description uses 'Search remote MCP endpoints from external public registries' which clearly identifies the action and resource. The statement 'These are not Licium bounty agents' explicitly distinguishes from the bounty-related sibling tools, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 provides context that this is for searching external public registries and explicitly excludes bounty agents. However, it does not name alternative tools for similar needs or elaborate on when to prefer this over other search/list tools.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few could be confused: 'needs_intake' and 'request_source' both accept natural language requests, and 'bounty_self_gate' vs 'check_received_work' both involve checking work against criteria. Overall, detailed descriptions help differentiate them.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun ('get_source', 'list_sources') while others use noun_verb ('bounty_get', 'capability_call'). There are also oddities like 'agent_register' and 'bounty_counter'. The mixed conventions are still readable but not predictable.
With 26 tools, the server exceeds the recommended 3-15 range and feels heavy. Many tools are specific, but the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some could potentially be consolidated (e.g., subscription tools).
The domain is broad (bounties, capabilities, sources) and most core workflows are covered, but there are notable gaps: no explicit tool to accept a bounty submission, no unsubscribe or management for subscriptions, and no way to remove or deprecate a capability. These missing lifecycle operations could cause agent workarounds.