find_toolsFind live FastDrop products by capability. Searches the actual tool lists FastDrop read from each endpoint via tools/list - not maker-supplied tags or descriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, 1-50, default 20 | |
| query | Yes | Capability, tool name, or description to match |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| products | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / products / items / properties / makerAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Who built the product. label is their own description of themselves (e.g. \"Indie hacker\"), \"Builder\" when unset. handle and profile are present once they have a public FastDrop profile.",
+ "properties": {
+ "handle": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "profile": {
+ "description": "Public profile URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "label"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results reflect live endpoint data read via tools/list rather than maker-supplied tags or descriptions, which tells the agent something about freshness and reliability. It still omits pagination or limit behavior.
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 short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the provenance caveat. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. What is missing is orientation against the sibling search_products and any note about how limit/paging affect discovery, which keeps it short of a 5.
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%, with both query and limit documented in the schema itself, so baseline 3 applies. The description's 'by capability' hints at matching semantics but adds no format, syntax, or matching-rule detail beyond what the schema already states.
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?
States a specific verb (Find), resource (live FastDrop products), and matching dimension (capability), and clarifies the data source as the actual tools/list output. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_products, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The closest thing to context is the provenance note about tools/list, which is about data accuracy rather than selection between this and search_products or get_product.
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.