Skip to main content
Glama

Search registry

search_registry
Read-onlyIdempotent

Keyword lookup in the Agent Nexus registry when you already know what to look for: a product name, vendor, slug or endpoint fragment, optionally narrowed to one category. Matches literal text only — it does not interpret a goal. To go from a plain-language need to a callable interface, use discover_capabilities instead; to walk the whole catalogue in order use list_entries, and for the full record of one known slug use get_entry. Read-only and side-effect free. Returns {count, results[]} where each result is a summary entry record (slug, name, category, summary, endpoint, trust fields). Results are ordered alphabetically by name, not by relevance; there is no pagination beyond the limit parameter — raise limit (max 50) or narrow the query to see more. An empty results[] when nothing matches is a valid answer, not an error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoUpper bound on entries returned, 1-50, default 10. Results are ordered by name, not by relevance, so a small limit on a broad keyword can hide better matches — raise it or use discover_capabilities when you are ranking candidates.
queryNoLiteral substring, max 120 chars, matched case-insensitively against name, summary, endpoint and slug — a product name ('resend'), a vendor, a slug fragment or a host ('api.stripe.com'). Single terms work best: the whole string is matched as one substring, so 'send email' finds nothing unless those words appear together. The characters % , ( ) are stripped. An empty query (the default) returns the first entries in name order, which is a browse, not a search.
categoryNoOptional filter, exactly one of 'api', 'mcp' or 'cli' (see list_categories). Combined with query as AND. Omit to search all three layers.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYes
resultsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds traits annotations cannot express: literal substring matching with no goal interpretation, alphabetical rather than relevance ordering, no pagination beyond limit, and that an empty result set is valid rather than an error. These are exactly the runtime surprises an agent needs warned about.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the routing decision, then matching semantics, ordering caveats and the empty-result rule — all high-value. The sentence describing the {count, results[]} shape duplicates the output schema, which is the one piece that doesn't earn its place.

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?

For a three-param read tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description closes the remaining gaps: matching mode, sort order, pagination limits and the meaning of an empty result. An agent can call this correctly without further probing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schemas already spell out substring matching, the 120-char cap, stripped characters, the empty-query browse behavior and the 1-50 limit. The description's parameter content ('optionally narrowed to one category', 'raise limit (max 50)') largely restates that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (keyword lookup) plus resource (Agent Nexus registry) and immediately bounds the scope to literal text, not intent. It explicitly distinguishes itself from discover_capabilities, list_entries and get_entry by naming each sibling's job.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when you already know what to look for') and three named alternatives with the condition that selects each: discover_capabilities for plain-language needs, list_entries for catalogue walks, get_entry for a known slug. Nothing is left to inference.

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.

Resources