Keyboardino

Find switches

find_switches

Read-onlyIdempotent

Finds keyboard switches in the website's catalog by feel, actuation force and sound recordings, and returns their specifications. A force matches switches that list a value within 10 gf of it, and a set that offers several feels is listed under each of them.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "find_switches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No	Switch feel: linear, tactile or clicky.
`force`	No	Actuation force in gram-force, for example 45.
`limit`	No	Number of switches to return, from 1 to 20. 8 without it.
`sound`	No	True returns only switches that have a sound recording.
`offset`	No	Number of matching switches to skip, taken from nextOffset of the previous result. 0 without it.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view`	Yes
`items`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`request`	Yes
`pageSize`	Yes
`nextCursor`	Yes
`nextOffset`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 11, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / offset

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Number of matching switches to skip, taken from nextOffset of the previous result. 0 without it.",
+  "maximum": 5000,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / nextOffset

Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "integer",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "view",
-  "items",
-  "total",
-  "nextCursor",
-  "pageSize",
-  "request"
-]New value: +[
+  "items",
+  "nextCursor",
+  "nextOffset",
+  "pageSize",
+  "request",
+  "total",
+  "view"
+]

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond that: the ±10 gf tolerance for force matching, and the fact that a switch set offering several feels is listed under each of them — both materially affect how results should be read.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and filter surface front-loaded and the matching caveats placed after. Each sentence carries information an agent would not get from the structured fields alone.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return structure need not be described, and the schema handles defaults, ranges and pagination via offset/nextOffset. The description covers the non-obvious matching semantics, leaving only minor gaps such as the ordering of results or any statement that all parameters are optional filters.

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%, so every parameter (type, force, limit, sound, offset, including defaults of 8 and 0) is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's 'within 10 gf of it' clarification does add matching semantics beyond the schema's 'actuation force in gram-force', but it is a modest increment rather than a full explanation of each parameter's effect.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Finds keyboard switches in the website's catalog') and enumerates the filter dimensions (feel, actuation force, sound recordings) plus the return payload ('their specifications'). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like compare_layouts or plan_keyboard_build, so it stops 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a catalog-browsing/selection tool from the filter vocabulary, but there is no explicit 'use this when' statement and no named alternative for adjacent tasks. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

All Keyboardino tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.