find_servicesSearch Wever Labs first-party services and the official MCP Registry by capability. Discovery does not authorize execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| capability | No | ||
| include_registry | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the further nuance that discovery does not authorize execution. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the tool's non-authoritative role, which is valuable behavioral context. No contradiction 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and scope, then adds a critical caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (all optional) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits any mention of return behavior, result format, or parameter interactions (e.g., does include_registry default to true?). The minimal caveat is useful, but it leaves significant gaps for a discovery tool that is likely used in multi-step workflows.
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 0%, and the description only hints at 'capability' as a search dimension. It does not explain the purpose or expected format of limit, query, include_registry, or capability, leaving the agent to infer their meanings from parameter names alone. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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's function: searching Wever Labs first-party services and the official MCP Registry by capability. This distinguishes it from siblings like inspect_service (inspecting a specific service) and run_service (executing a service), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 'Discovery does not authorize execution' provides implicit guidance that this is for discovery, not execution, implying users should use a separate tool to execute. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over, e.g., inspect_service. The usage context is clear but not fully explicit.
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.
With 89 tools, there is extensive overlap. For example, multiple tools handle completing paid rail runs (complete_agent_self_serve_paid_rail_run, complete_paid_rail_run_with_callback, run_stripe_receipt_completion) and several verify receipts (verify_receipt, verify_managed_receipt_signature, verify_signature_by_version). Distinguishing between these without deep inspection is nearly impossible.
Most tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., start_rail_run, get_run_status, verify_receipt). However, there are minor deviations like 'credential_aware_mcp_write' which is not verb-first, making it slightly inconsistent. Overall the naming is quite uniform.
89 tools is an extreme count, far beyond the typical 3-15 or even 25+. This suggests the server is trying to cover too many sub-domains, making the tool surface unwieldy and difficult to navigate.
The tool surface is extremely broad, covering discovery, quoting, payment, run lifecycle, receipts, credentials, directory submission, compliance, and verification. It lacks some expected operations like cancellation or refund, but these are niche and the core workflows are well-covered.