DevMatch

find_similar_projects

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use to map the landscape around a seed repository, for example before searching for people. Input: owner/name. Returns similar open source projects and their top contributors. This is not a shortlist; call find_candidates for that. Read only.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Seed repo in `owner/name` form (e.g. 'karpathy/llm.c'). A full github.com URL is also accepted; the server strips the prefix.
`limit`	No	Number of similar projects to return. Defaults to 10, max 25.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`seed`	No	The owner/name searched against
`coverage`	No	Set to not_covered when this search returned zero evidence-backed similar projects. Hosts must say so and must not invent repos.
`projects`	Yes	Similar projects, closest to the seed repo by vector similarity.
`query_ms`	No
`total_count`	No
`cache_source`	No
`coverage_note`	No	Short note when coverage is not_covered.
`untrusted_third_party`	No	True on the Poke / no_contact path: third-party text is labeled untrusted and length-capped.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 17, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / projects / items / properties / top_contributors / description

Previous value: -"Contributor leads — follow with find_candidates for unique mission fit."New value: +"Contributor leads. Follow with find_candidates for people."

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 25, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / coverage

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set to not_covered when this search returned zero evidence-backed similar projects. Hosts must say so and must not invent repos.",
+  "enum": [
+    "not_covered"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / coverage_note

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Short note when coverage is not_covered.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / untrusted_third_party

Added value: +{
+  "description": "True on the Poke / no_contact path: third-party text is labeled untrusted and length-capped.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing what is returned (similar projects plus top contributors) and clarifying that results are exploratory rather than a shortlist. It does not add deeper details like rate limits or auth requirements, but those are less critical for a read-only discovery tool with an output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose, input format, return content, exclusion, and read-only status appear in four short, purposeful sentences. The redundant 'Read only' is minor and does not detract from an otherwise efficient structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It specifies the input format, describes the return, clarifies the tool's scope against alternatives, and requires no additional information to be used appropriately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully documents both the `repo` and `limit` parameters including format, default, and maximum. The description only restates the `owner/name` input syntax, adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('map the landscape around a seed repository'), names the return content ('similar open source projects and their top contributors'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling find_candidates. An agent can identify what the tool does and what it does not do without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a concrete usage context ('for example before searching for people') and explicitly routes the agent to the correct alternative ('This is not a shortlist; call find_candidates for that'). The when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions are both stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DevMatch tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?