search_skillsFind agent skills for a task. Returns name, description, category, source repo, one-line install command and whether a proof exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | What the user is trying to do, e.g. 'landing page design' or 'postgres migrations' | |
| category | No | Optional category filter: Design, Frontend, Backend, Testing, Security, Data & Science, Docs & Writing, Automation, Motion, Other |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned fields, including install command and proof existence, which matters because no output schema exists.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return fields. Every sentence contributes 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 purpose and return fields, which is helpful given the lack of an output schema. It is still incomplete for a search tool because it does not clarify category filtering, limit behavior, or when to use it over adjacent skill-retrieval tools.
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 moderate at 67%, and the description adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema. It loosely implies a task/query focus but does not explain the category filter or the limit parameter, leaving the latter undocumented in both schema and description.
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 and resource: 'Find agent skills for a task.' It is clear what the tool does and what metadata it returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_skill or list_proven.
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 phrase 'for a task' implies this is a discovery/search tool, so usage is reasonably inferable. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention alternatives such as get_skill for known skills.
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.