search_themesSearch public Tailthemes metadata by name, description, tags, or category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Case-insensitive substring to search for. Empty returns all themes. | |
| category | No | Optional case-insensitive category substring filter. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'public' scope which is useful, but provides no additional behavioral context like pagination or result limits. This is adequate but not rich.
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?
A single, clear sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and scope with no extraneous words. All essential information is front-loaded.
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 read-only search tool with two optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential usage. There is no output schema, so return format is not specified, but for a metadata search this is a minor gap. Annotations provide safety context.
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%, so both parameters (query and category) are documented in the schema. The description mentions searching by name/description/tags/category, which maps to the query parameter, but adds no new information about parameter behavior or formats beyond what the schema provides.
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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('public Tailthemes metadata'), and the searchable fields (name, description, tags, category). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_theme or download_theme, which have different purposes.
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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies searching is for discovery, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use search_themes instead of get_theme or get_component.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: searching metadata, retrieving a theme manifest, downloading a theme archive, and reading a specific component file. No overlapping purposes.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: download_theme, get_component, get_theme, search_themes. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
Four tools is a well-scoped size for a theme-serving server. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers discovery (search), inspection (get_theme), file access (get_component), and acquisition (download_theme). No obvious missing operations for the server's apparent read-only consumer purpose.