[Social Content] Search Steam for games. Returns titles, prices, ratings, and descriptions.
Args: query: Game name or search term (e.g. 'cyberpunk', 'strategy') max_results: Maximum games (default 10)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that it returns titles, prices, etc., but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits, exact return structure).
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?
Two sentences for purpose, then clear bullet-like Args section. No redundant text. Front-loaded with key information.
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?
Covers search domain, returned fields, and parameter usage. Lacks mention of result limit (beyond max_results), sorting, or potential missing results. Output schema not provided, but description lists return types adequately.
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 has 0% description coverage, so description compensates fully. Both parameters are explained with examples ('e.g. cyberpunk') and default value mentioned for max_results.
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?
Description clearly states it searches Steam for games and lists returned fields (titles, prices, ratings, descriptions). Distinct from sibling tools that search DevTo, events, or podcasts. Verb 'search' and resource 'Steam games' are specific.
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?
Implied usage via examples (e.g., 'cyberpunk'), but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other search tools. No mention of alternatives or when not to use.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality across categories (e.g., multiple search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, real estate tools, DNS/WHOIS checks). An agent would struggle to differentiate between similar tools from different categories, leading to ambiguity.
Tools follow a 'category__verb_noun' pattern mostly, but verbs vary (get, search, screen, check, etc.) and some categories use different orders (e.g., 'get_repo_stats' vs 'search_repos'). The consistency is acceptable but not uniform across the entire set.
With 152 tools, the server is excessively large for a single MCP server. While it aims to be an all-in-one gateway, the sheer number overwhelms the agent and likely exceeds practical limits for coherent selection.
The server covers a wide range of domains (finance, real estate, news, developer tools, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., social media APIs, CRM tools). Coverage is broad but not exhaustive, and some niche areas (e.g., global stock exchanges) are over-represented.