Search the AI Collection directory for AI tools matching a query. Returns a ranked list with name, URL, and short description. Use this for 'find me a tool that does X' requests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return. | |
| query | Yes | Free-text query to match against application names and descriptions. | |
| category | No | Optional category linkName to scope the search (e.g. 'image-generation'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / includeNSFWRemoved value: -{
- "default": false,
- "description": "If true, include results from the NSFW category.",
- "type": "boolean"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a ranked list with name, URL, and short description, and that it matches a query. This is sufficient to understand the read-only behavior and output, though it does not detail ranking semantics or edge cases.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately states the result format and primary use case. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.
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 tool has 3 params (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose, output fields, and a concrete usage scenario. While it doesn't mention category filtering or ranking order, the schema fills some gaps, and the overall description is reasonably complete for a search tool.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by framing the query as 'find me a tool that does X' and mentioning output fields, but it does not add meaning to the category or limit parameters beyond what the schema already states. The description does not improve parameter understanding significantly.
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 the AI Collection directory and returns a ranked list with name, URL, and short description. It uses a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('AI Collection directory'), and result format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like browse_category or get_tool.
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 explicitly provides a use case: 'Use this for "find me a tool that does X" requests.' This gives solid context for when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use alternatives, but the context is clear enough that a 4 is appropriate rather than a 5.
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.