[Tool directory] Search open-source AI agent tools (frameworks, coding agents, memory, RAG, observability, MCP servers) ranked by GitHub activity. Returns stars, 30-day star growth, capabilities and alternatives.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-20, default 10) | |
| query | Yes | What you need, e.g. 'multi-agent framework in TypeScript' or 'RAG' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the ranking signal (GitHub activity) and the return contents (stars, 30-day growth, capabilities, alternatives), but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or result ordering beyond the ranking mention.
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 dense sentences with the search scope front-loaded and no filler. Slightly overloaded by the parenthetical category list, but every clause is informative.
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 simple two-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers scope, ranking, and return fields adequately. It omits routing guidance against siblings, which is the main remaining gap.
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 a format example and range. The description adds no syntax or query-semantics detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (Search) and resource (open-source AI agent tools), enumerating the covered categories so the agent knows the directory's scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_tool or get_alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite get_tool and get_alternatives being obvious siblings. The only hint of usage is the schema's query example, which the description does not reinforce.
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.