Search Gluecron repositories by keyword (name + description), case-insensitively. Returns public repos plus any private repos owned by the authenticated caller. Default 20 per page, max 50; total is the full match count and nextOffset pages through it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows per page (default 20, max 50) | |
| query | Yes | Search keyword (1-100 chars) | |
| offset | No | Rows to skip. Use `nextOffset` from the previous response. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral context: the visibility filter applied to results, the page-size default and hard cap, and the fact that `total` is the full match count rather than the page size. Ordering/ranking behavior is the main omission.
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?
Three compact sentences: purpose first, then visibility scope, then pagination contract. Every clause carries information an agent needs and none of it repeats the schema verbatim in a wasteful way.
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 correctly compensates by naming the return fields `total` and `nextOffset` and explaining their paging relationship. Annotations cover the read-only safety story. The gap is that the near-duplicate sibling tool is never addressed, leaving the agent without a routing rule.
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 all three parameters are already documented, including the 1-100 char bound on query and the instruction to feed `nextOffset` back into offset. The description restates the 20/50 limit values and clarifies how total and nextOffset relate to paging, which is mild reinforcement rather than new parameter meaning.
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 ... repositories by keyword'), narrows the searched fields to name + description, and specifies case-insensitive matching. What it does not do is distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling merjax_search_repos, which an agent would have no basis to choose between from this text alone.
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 description explains the result scope (public repos plus private repos owned by the caller), which is useful context but not when-to-use guidance. It never says when to prefer this over merjax_search_repos, merjax_search_code, or merjax_semantic_search, so selection among the search family is left entirely to inference.
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.
