Newest MCP servers by real first_seen_at (same payload as GET /v1/recent). Unmetered. Only rows with a known first-seen date — never invents or guesses discovery times. Optional limit 1–50 (default 20).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results 1–50 (default 20) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call is unmetered, that only rows with known first-seen dates are returned, and that it never fabricates or guesses discovery times. It does not describe errors or response details, but for a simple read-oriented list tool this is solid coverage.
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?
The description is three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds payload equivalence, metering behavior, data integrity guarantees, and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-optional-parameter list tool, the description covers the essential selection and invocation details: what is returned, the ordering basis, the data-quality caveat, and the limit behavior. It relies on the GET /v1/recent reference for output shape, which is acceptable though not fully self-contained.
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%: the limit parameter is already documented in the schema. The description repeats the limit range and default without adding new semantic detail beyond that, so baseline 3 is 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?
The description states a clear verb-like action: returning the newest MCP servers ordered by real first_seen_at, and references the exact payload shape via GET /v1/recent. This distinguishes it from siblings like census_search or census_stats without ambiguity.
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?
It provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving the latest discovered servers, ordered by real first_seen_at, and only includes rows with known discovery dates. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough to guide appropriate use.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one for exact lookup by name, the other for keyword search. There is no overlap in functionality.
Both tools follow the same 'census_<verb>' pattern ('lookup' and 'search'), which is predictable and consistent.
With only two tools, the set is minimal but appropriate for a focused census service covering lookup and search. However, it borders on feeling thin.
The tools cover the core operations (lookup and search), but lack additional features like listing all servers or retrieving detailed statistics, which are minor gaps.
