search_toolsSearch for tools using natural language.
Returns matching tool definitions ranked by relevance, in the same format as list_tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Natural language query to search for tools |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no safety risk is hidden. The description adds that results are 'ranked by relevance' and returned 'in the same format as list_tools,' which gives useful context beyond the annotation, but it does not describe edge cases or query limitations.
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 concise sentences deliver the action, input, and return behavior with no filler. The most important 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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. Mentioning that results match list_tools' format covers expectations, though it could have named a couple of query examples.
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% and the query parameter is described as a 'natural language query to search for tools.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema is doing all the work. Baseline 3 applies.
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 clear action ('Search for tools') and resource ('tool definitions'), with natural language as the input method. It distinguishes itself from list-like tools by emphasizing 'matching' and 'ranked by relevance', though it does not explicitly name a comparable alternative.
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 implies this tool is for natural-language discovery when you need a subset of relevant tools, but it never states when to use list_tools instead or why search_tools should be preferred over simple listings. This is adequate but not 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.
Many tools are clearly separated by domain prefix, but several overlap: posts_publish_now duplicates posts_create's publish_now mode, posts_edit_post vs posts_update is confusing without reading both descriptions, and analytics_get_analytics broadly overlaps the more specific analytics metrics tools. The descriptions do help disambiguate, but the large number of similar post/analytics helpers still creates selection risk.
Most tools follow a readable lower_snake resource_verb format, with domains like accounts_, posts_, profiles_, and queue_. However, there is notable drift: redundant suffixes (queue_create_queue_slot, tracking_tags_get_tracking_tag_stats), singular/plural mismatch (account_groups_ vs accounts_), non-prefixed helpers (call_tool, search_tools, docs_search), and paired verbs that seem arbitrary (posts_edit_post vs posts_update). It is readable but not cleanly consistent.
51 tools is far above the range where an agent can quickly select the right one, and many entries are wrappers or variants: publish_now, edit_post, retry_all_failed, and multiple analytics/queue helpers could be consolidated. The broad domain justifies more tools than a tiny server, but this count is excessive and will add navigation overhead.
The server covers the core social media management lifecycle well: profiles, accounts, posts, scheduling, queueing, analytics, comments, mentions, media uploads, tracking tags, and usage billing are all represented. There are minor gaps—tracking tags are read-only, there is no direct account connection/disconnection flow, and published-post deletion is unsupported—but agents can complete the main workflows with these tools.