搜尋官方 MCP Registry 的 MCP 伺服器，可依關鍵字、分類、是否可遠端連線篩選。分類：資料庫、檔案與文件、瀏覽器與爬蟲、搜尋、開發工具、雲端與基礎設施、通訊與協作、財經與加密、地圖與旅遊、設計與多媒體、AI 與模型、電商與行銷、資安
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": "hub_search_mcp_servers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| tag | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| remote_only | No |
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 full burden. It discloses the data source (the official MCP Registry), which is useful context, but does not state that this is a read-only lookup, mention rate limits, or describe result volume/pagination. For a search operation this is a moderate gap rather than a severe one.
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 purpose and filter dimensions are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the category list is long but each entry adds value as the enum of valid 'tag' values. No filler sentences.
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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filterable fields, and the category vocabulary. Return-value explanation is unnecessary without an output schema, and only the absent usage guidance holds it back from completeness.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does for three of four parameters: keyword (q), category (tag), and remote-connection (remote_only). It even enumerates the acceptable category values, which the schema lacks entirely. Only 'limit' is left unexplained, which is largely self-evident.
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: '搜尋官方 MCP Registry 的 MCP 伺服器' (search MCP servers in the official MCP Registry), with the filterable dimensions spelled out. It does not explicitly contrast itself with hub_find_tool_for_task, but the resource (a registry of servers) is concrete and distinct enough to be actionable.
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 lists filter dimensions but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hub_find_tool_for_task, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only weakly implied by the mention of filters.
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.