Search the Silicon Friendly directory for AI-agent-friendly websites.
Args:
query: Search terms to find websites (e.g. "payment processing", "email API")
search_type: Type of search - 'semantic' (AI-powered, better results) or 'keyword' (exact token match). Default: 'semantic'
Returns:
List of matching websites with name, domain, level, and similarity/relevance score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| search_type | No | semantic |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the behavior well by detailing the return format and the difference between semantic and keyword searches. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention potential rate limits, pagination, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 succinct and well-structured, opening with a clear purpose sentence and then using an Args/Returns format. Every sentence provides useful information without waste.
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?
The description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and return values. Since there is no output schema, including the return fields is important. It lacks some detail on result limits or ordering, but for a simple search tool it is sufficiently complete.
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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters with examples and clarifying the default and distinction for search_type. It adds meaning well beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the tool searches a directory for AI-agent-friendly websites, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_verified_websites by emphasizing query-based search rather than listing all entries.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (query-based search) and explains the two search types and their trade-offs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_verified_websites or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources (levels, queue, websites, verification) and actions. check_agent_friendliness and get_website both retrieve info about a specific site, but the former is a quick status check while the latter provides full criteria details, so they are distinguishable. No other overlapping tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get, list, search, submit, verify, check). The verbs clearly indicate the action, and nouns indicate the target. No mixed conventions or stylistic inconsistencies.
8 tools is well-scoped for a directory service with submission, verification, search, and listing capabilities. Each tool serves a distinct function without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal range.
The tool set covers the core workflows: submit, verify, search, list, and check status. However, there are no update or delete operations for websites, which is a notable gap for managing directory entries. The absence of these operations could limit maintenance workflows.