w3bs_w3bs_search[W3BS] Search the registry for versioned W3BS resources.
Served by W3BS (https://w3bs.org).
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": "w3bs_w3bs_search"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no matching semantics (substring, full-text, exact), no result ordering or paging, no indication of whether an empty query returns everything.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ("Served by W3BS (https://w3bs.org)") is boilerplate that consumes space without adding selection or invocation value. Brevity here reflects missing content rather than efficiency.
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 output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description should explain what comes back and how to narrow results. Instead it provides only a one-line purpose plus a service URL, leaving the agent under-informed about results, ranking, and the effect of an empty query.
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 0%, so the description should compensate, and it does not — neither 'query' nor 'type' is mentioned. The twelve-value 'type' enum is partly self-documenting, but 'query' with a default of "" and maxLength 200 leaves the agent unsure what field is searched and what an empty value does.
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?
"Search the registry for versioned W3BS resources" gives a verb and a resource, but the resource is named with the same term as the product (W3BS), so the object of the search is left undefined. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as w3bs_w3bs_browse, w3bs_w3bs_packages, or w3bs_w3bs_inspect, which an agent could reasonably read as also finding resources.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus browse, packages, ask, or inspect, and no statement of what a search requires or returns. The agent must guess whether this is the right retrieval entry point.
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.