search_benchmarksFind benchmarks in the aggregate by (partial) name. Returns model coverage, difficulty on the rating scale, and the benchmark page URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-25, default 10). | |
| query | Yes | Benchmark name fragment, e.g. "swe-bench" or "arena". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuinely new context by naming the returned payload (model coverage, difficulty, benchmark page URL), which matters because there is no output schema.
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 tight sentences with the search action front-loaded and the return payload second. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.
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 two-parameter read-only search with a fully documented schema and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers what it does and what it returns. Minor omissions like result ranking or behavior when no match is found are tolerable at this complexity.
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 both parameters are already documented with range, default, and an example fragment. The description only echoes that the match is partial, adding no syntax or behavior beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (find benchmarks) plus the match semantics (partial name) and what comes back. It contrasts implicitly with the singular get_benchmark sibling through naming, but never explicitly differentiates the two in the text.
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?
The phrase 'by (partial) name' implies the use case - you have a fuzzy fragment rather than an identifier - which distinguishes it from get_benchmark in practice. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no named alternative.
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.