Search public tools across every tenant by name/description substring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Substring to match; omit for every public tool. | |
| limit | No | Max results; default 20. | |
| tenant_key | No | The key `signup` returned. Required only when this connection carries no Authorization: Bearer header -- when both are present, the header wins. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the search spans every tenant and only returns public tools, but says nothing about read-only nature, auth behavior, or pagination limits beyond what the schema states.
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?
A single short sentence with the scope and matching mechanism front-loaded. Every phrase (public, every tenant, name/description) earns its place with zero 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?
For a simple filtered search with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and matching but not return shape, ordering, or how limit interacts with results. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent needing to interpret results correctly.
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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only that the substring matches on name/description, a marginal clarification over the schema's 'Substring to match'.
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 (Search) and resource (public tools) plus the matching mechanism (name/description substring) and cross-tenant scope. It does not differentiate from the sibling host.catalog.get, which an agent might also select, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and the cross-tenant scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or comparison to alternatives such as host.catalog.get. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the tool name alone.
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.