Skip to main content
Glama

tools.search

Read-only

Search for MCP tools by capability. Each result is one (product, tool) pair — tools sharing a name across providers are NOT interchangeable, so each provider's tool is its own row with its own description and input schema. Ranking basis: semantic relevance to the query (embedding search); on the lexical fallback (searchMode='lexical') results are name-ordered and rank does NOT reflect relevance. Paid tier is NOT a ranking input — it appears only as an annotation. Every result carries { position (1-based), rank (0..1; 1.0 = top) } so callers can merge results across tools consistently, plus preflight annotations { accessModel (open|keyed|account|commercial; whether an agent can call it without becoming a customer first), healthScore (0-100, nullable), readOnly, destructive } so you can judge callability and safety BEFORE selecting. Optional access filter narrows to a single access class. Response: { searchMode ('semantic'|'lexical'), tools: [{ position, rank, normalizedName, displayName, description, inputSchema, productSlug, productName, serverQualifiedName, isRemoteCapable, accessModel, healthScore, readOnly, destructive, tier, unverified (true when no approved vendor claim), verifiedAt (ISO; nullable) }] }. Errors: { error: { code: 'bad_input', ... } }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of results to return
queryYesSearch query to find tools by name or capability. Natural-language phrases work best (semantic search).
accessNoOptional access-class filter: 'open' (callable anonymously), 'keyed', 'account', 'commercial', or 'unknown'. Omit for all.
remoteOnlyNoIf true, only return tools available via remote (network-hosted) MCP servers

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
toolsNo
searchModeNo

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds significant context: ranking details, result structure with position and rank, access model, health score, error codes, and fallback behavior. No contradictions found.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and single-paragraph, front-loaded with main purpose, but could be better organized with bullet points for readability. It is not overly verbose given the complexity, but structure could improve.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a complex search tool, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers ranking, result fields, access models, error handling, and fallback modes. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no parameter details beyond what's in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Search for MCP tools by capability,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tools.list_by_name and tools.find_for_task by explaining the result structure and ranking behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides when to use the tool (searching by capability), explains ranking based on semantic or lexical mode, and describes optional filters like access class and remoteOnly. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative suggestions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are generally distinct, but products.search and products.find_by_capability overlap in capability-based search, causing potential ambiguity. However, descriptions clarify the differences.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming follows a dot-separated pattern with verb-noun, but there are inconsistencies: use of underscores (mcp.score_server), varying verb choices (list, find, get, search), and mixing of object and action order.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools cover a comprehensive range of functionality for a directory/MCP server—from browsing categories to detailed tool search and drift detection—without feeling excessive.

Completeness4/5

The set covers most key operations (CRUD, search, rankings, MCP setup, change detection), but lacks tools for updating or modifying data, which is acceptable for a mostly read-driven directory API.

Resources