stocks_search_symbolSearches for a stock ticker symbol by company name (e.g. "Apple" → AAPL). Start here for Stocks — the symbol it returns is what stocks_get_quote / stocks_get_chart need.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Company name or partial ticker to search for |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| results | No |
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. The description adds the useful context that results feed into quote/chart tools. It doesn't describe return format or pagination/limit behavior, but annotations carry the safety burden adequately, so a 3 is fair.
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, zero waste. The first states the purpose with an illustrative example; the second provides workflow direction by naming the dependent sibling tools. Every word serves a function.
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 lookup tool with 2 well-documented params, an output schema present, and safe annotations, the description is complete. It explains what it does, how to use it, and what to do with the result. The output schema covers return structure, and annotations cover safety.
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 100% with descriptions for both 'query' (company name or partial ticker) and 'limit' (max results, default 10). The description reinforces query semantics with the concrete example 'Apple' → AAPL, adding value beyond the bare schema by clarifying the input format and expected output mapping.
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?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Searches for a stock ticker symbol by company name' with a concrete example (Apple → AAPL). It distinguishes itself from siblings stocks_get_quote / stocks_get_chart by explicitly saying 'the symbol it returns is what stocks_get_quote / stocks_get_chart need', clarifying it's a lookup/entry point rather than a data retrieval tool.
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 explicitly says 'Start here for Stocks' and identifies the downstream consumers (stocks_get_quote / stocks_get_chart), giving clear guidance on when this tool fits in a workflow. This provides strong usage context among the many sibling tools.
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.
Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.
The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.
With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.
For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.