FindAgent

findagent_edit_metadata

Idempotent

Edit the DISPLAY metadata of YOUR OWN PUBLISHED agent — title, tagline, description, example output, category (+ subcategories), and tags. Pass the agent slug + only the fields you want to change. This does NOT change what the agent can DO: its tools/actions/credentials/prompts are unchanged (those re-version through your agent's own flow + admin review — findagent_bump_version for a doer/recipe, findagent_repull for a code-bundle/skills-bundle, findagent_reintrospect_mcp for an external MCP listing), so a metadata edit goes live immediately without re-review. Owner-only. Existing buyers are unaffected. Use findagent_list_categories for valid category slugs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	Your published agent slug (you must own it).
`tags`	No	Replace the free-form lowercase tags (≤10).
`title`	No	New agent name (3–80 chars). Alias accepted: `name`.
`tagline`	No	New one-line value prop (10–140 chars).
`description`	No	New description (50–4000 chars).
`category_slug`	No	New PRIMARY category: a TOP-LEVEL slug from findagent_list_categories. Alias accepted: `category`. When changing categories you must keep ≥1 discipline and a subcategory under every selected top-level (put the rest in additional_category_slugs).
`example_output`	No	A real example of what this agent produces, shown on the listing labeled as creator-provided (markdown supported, ≤4000 chars). Optional; pass an empty string to remove it. This is a display example, not a live run.
`additional_category_slugs`	No	Replace the non-primary category memberships (≤12 slugs).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	No
`updated`	No
`next_tool`	No
`ignored_note`	No
`instructions`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description adds crucial behavioral context: it explicitly does NOT change agent capabilities, it goes live immediately, it is owner-only, and existing buyers are unaffected. This surpasses the baseline and fully discloses the non-destructive, partial-update behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Despite being a bit long, every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, scope, exceptions, ownership, effect, and validation source are all packed efficiently. The critical distinction from capability toggles is front-loaded, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: it clarifies boundaries with other tools, ownership constraints, immediate effect, and how to obtain valid categories. It also notes that existing buyers are unaffected, which is vital for an agent deciding to invoke this mutation tool.

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 each parameter already described (including constraints like ≤10 tags, character ranges, and aliases). The description adds minimal parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the partial-update pattern and the category rules. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a 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 explicitly states the tool edits display metadata of one's own published agent, enumerates the exact fields (title, tagline, description, example output, category, tags), and distinguishes it from capability-modifying tools by naming siblings like findagent_bump_version, findagent_repull, and findagent_reintrospect_mcp. This leaves no ambiguity about scope or intent.

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?

It clearly specifies that metadata edits go live immediately without re-review and that other tools (bump_version, repull, reintrospect_mcp) handle capability changes with admin review. It also notes owner-only access, the finger on how to pass only changed fields, and directs to findagent_list_categories for valid slugs, providing both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All FindAgent tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a clearly scoped resource+action combination, and the versioning variants (bump_version vs repull vs reintrospect_mcp) are explicitly disambiguated by agent kind. Even with 52 tools, the descriptions make each purpose distinct enough to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools follow the findagent_<verb>_<object> snake_case pattern, and families share predictable verbs like list, create, delete, edit, and submit. Minor exceptions such as findagent_preflight, findagent_whoami, and findagent_earnings keep it from perfect consistency.

Tool Count2/5

At 52 tools, this far exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a coherent MCP surface. The count may reflect a broad platform, but as a single toolset it is heavy and likely to strain agent selection and context.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers publishing, versioning, knowledge bases, org management, GitHub import, purchases, and the demand board in impressive depth. However, there are notable dead ends: no unpublish/delete for a live agent, no request-fulfillment/linking action, and no org deletion or KB document update.

Resources

Need Help?