DevMatch

find_similar_projects

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find open-source projects similar to a seed GitHub repo, closest in description, topics, and README. Each result includes top contributors as leads — not a hiring shortlist. Returns structuredContent (view=similar_projects). Agents: consume structuredContent only.

Use for landscape mapping or to discover anchor repos; follow with find_candidates for hiring matches.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

TableJSON 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.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: results include top contributors as leads rather than hiring candidates, and it instructs agents to 'consume structuredContent only.' This is useful operational guidance without contradicting annotations.

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: the core purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by a decisive contributor caveat and a structuredContent consumption note, then a single usage sentence. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the output consumption model ('structuredContent only'), the non-hiring nature of results, and the follow-up tool to use when hiring is the actual goal.

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%, so the parameters repo and limit are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that repo is a 'seed GitHub repo' and mentions matching dimensions, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 uses a specific verb ('Find') plus a precise resource ('open-source projects similar to a seed GitHub repo') and defines matching criteria: 'closest in description, topics, and README.' It also distinguishes itself from find_candidates by positioning results as 'leads — not a hiring shortlist.'

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?

Explicit usage guidance is present: 'Use for landscape mapping or to discover anchor repos; follow with find_candidates for hiring matches.' This clearly says when to use this tool versus an alternative and directs the agent to the sibling for a different goal.

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?