searchSearch the MeshMarket exchange for capabilities agents can rent (memory, reasoning, safety, images, commerce and whatever providers have listed). Free, no key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | what you're looking for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds that no key is needed and that the search covers all provider-listed capabilities, providing useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key usage conditions without excess.
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 search tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and read-only annotation, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its access requirements. It doesn't describe return format, but output schema is absent and the tool's simplicity mitigates the need.
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?
The single parameter 'query' is fully documented in the schema with description 'what you're looking for'. The tool description does not add additional meaning or format hints, so it relies on 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly defines the target ('MeshMarket exchange for capabilities agents can rent'), with examples of capability types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like merchant-discovery or fetch.
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 states the tool is free and requires no key, indicating when it can be used without authentication. It also implies the scope ('whatever providers have listed'), but does not explicitly exclude or compare to sibling tools, so it provides clear context without alternatives.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: search and mesh_discover both enumerate the catalog, while biz-analyze, task-analysis, and task-orchestrate all produce structured plans from a described situation. This will cause agents to misselect between them despite otherwise distinct tools.
Naming is inconsistent: mesh_* tools use snake_case, most capability tools use hyphenated lowercase names, and a few (fetch, search) are bare verbs. There is no single verb-object or noun-verb pattern that holds across the set.
28 tools is on the heavy side, but the marketplace concept justifies including many callable capabilities. However, the mix of platform tools and unrelated utilities makes the surface feel cluttered and hard to navigate.
The core marketplace lifecycle is well covered: signup, discover, fetch, publish, delegate, refer, follow, subscribe, and balance. Minor gaps exist (no unpublish or edit for listings), but most agent workflows can proceed without dead ends.