MCP Harbor Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is the 'full' listing (versus the summary surfaced by search_tools), but says nothing about response shape or size, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the parameter qualification in parentheses. Nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient: identity, input source, and safety profile are all covered. It would be stronger with a hint about what the 'full listing' contains.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does explain the single parameter's meaning: a slug that identifies one tool and originates from search_tools. That is meaningfully more than the schema's bare 'type: string', though no format or example is given.

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 (Get) and resource (full MCP Harbor listing for one tool) and names the identifier that selects it (slug). It is clearly distinguishable from search_tools, though the contrast is conveyed indirectly via 'as returned by search_tools' rather than stated outright.

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 its slug (as returned by search_tools)' establishes the intended workflow: search first, then fetch details for one result. It gives clear usage context with no explicit exclusions, which fits a 4 rather than a full 5.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context by disclosing result ordering (relevance and GitHub stars), which is not derivable from the annotations or 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 sentences, both front-loaded and free of filler: the first states the action and filter, the second states the return semantics. Nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does describe what comes back and how it is ordered. The only gap is the limit/count parameter, which is left to the schema's default and bounds.

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 67%: query and category are documented in the schema, while limit (default 10, max 50) has no description anywhere. The description adds only "by keyword" and "filtered by category," roughly matching what the schema already says.

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: search the MCP Harbor directory of MCP servers and AI-agent tools, with an optional category filter and ranking behavior. It does not name the sibling get_tool or explicitly contrast the two, so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

"Optionally filtered by category" implies the lookup use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_tool (e.g. discovery vs. fetching a known tool). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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