Search individual tool capabilities across every indexed MCP server and identify each matching parent server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| online_only | No | ||
| authentication | No | ||
| read_only_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It does not specify whether results are live or cached, pagination, or what 'capabilities' entails. Minimal disclosure beyond the basic purpose.
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?
Single sentence, not wasteful, but lacks structure. Could be improved by front-loading key info like the return type or filtering behavior.
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's complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is extremely incomplete. It offers no information on return values, parameter effects, or usage 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 0% and description provides no explanation for any of the 5 parameters (query, limit, online_only, authentication, read_only_only). The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states it searches individual tool capabilities across MCP servers and identifies parent servers. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_mcp_servers (searches servers) and get_mcp_tool (gets specific tool).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_mcp_servers. No mention of prerequisites or context where this tool is preferred.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: checking endpoints, comparing servers, retrieving install instructions, getting endpoint/server/tool details, or searching. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_mcp_endpoint, search_mcp_tools). The naming is uniform and predictable.
With 8 tools, the set covers all necessary query, retrieval, and search functions for an MCP registry without excess. The count feels well-scoped.
The tools cover all major read operations for the registry domain, including retrieval of endpoints, servers, tools, and search. Minor gaps like update/delete operations are absent but consistent with a supposedly static index.