Fetch read-only related HeyClaude entries based on category, tags, platforms, keywords, and source metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug of the reference entry to find related entries for. | |
| limit | No | Maximum related entries to return (1–25, default 8). | |
| category | Yes | Category of the reference entry (e.g. 'mcp', 'skills'). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| policy | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. However, the description claims the tool filters by tags, platforms, keywords, and source metadata, which are not in the input schema. This is misleading as an agent may expect those parameters or assume they are inferred, which is not transparent.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and key criteria. No unnecessary words.
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?
The tool has an output schema and strong annotations, so the description does not need to cover return values. However, the mismatch between described criteria and available parameters reduces completeness. The description could better explain how the tool uses the slug and category to derive related entries.
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 clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds that the tool uses 'category, tags, platforms, keywords, and source metadata' as criteria, giving context beyond the schema, though the extra criteria do not appear as parameters. This adds value but also confusion.
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 it fetches related entries based on various criteria, but it mentions tags, platforms, keywords, and source metadata that are not present as input parameters. This inconsistency reduces clarity on what exactly the tool does.
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 usage when needing related entries to a reference entry, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like entry.detail or registry.search. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, especially with clear prefixes. However, there is some overlap between entry.safety and entry.trust (both deal with safety/trust metadata), and between registry.recommend and registry.plan (both provide recommendations). The descriptions help differentiate but some ambiguity remains.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a domain prefix (entry, install, registry, submission) followed by a descriptive noun, all lowercase with underscores. This makes the surface predictable and easy to navigate.
27 tools is slightly high but reasonable given the broad scope of the HeyClaude registry, which includes browsing, recommending, installing guidance, and submission preparation. The count is appropriate for the server's purpose.
The tool surface is comprehensive, covering search, detail, comparison, safety/trust analysis, install setup for multiple clients, recommendation, and a full submission pipeline (validation, review, schema, etc.). There are no obvious gaps for the intended read-only registry directory functionality.
