list_mcp_serversList MCP servers in the AdvertisingProtocols directory. Optionally filter by protocol slug/label (e.g. 'adcp'), vendor, category, or 'officialOnly' to get only publisher-owned servers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| vendor | No | Vendor name substring (e.g. 'Google', 'IAB'). | |
| protocol | No | Protocol slug or label to filter by (e.g. 'adcp', 'AdCP', 'aamp'). | |
| officialOnly | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the directory scope but does not disclose pagination behavior or return format beyond the limit parameter in the schema.
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 communicates the main action and optional filters. Every word earns its place with no fluff.
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 simplicity (list with filtering) and no output schema, the description covers essential context: the directory and filter options. It is nearly complete for a read-only list operation, though mentioning the return format would be ideal.
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 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds examples for the protocol parameter (e.g., 'adcp') and mentions filtering options, which adds value. However, it does not compensate fully for the undocumented parameter (limit missing description) nor provide syntax details.
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 'List' and resource 'MCP servers in the AdvertisingProtocols directory'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_protocol (single protocol) and search_protocols (protocols), which are different resources.
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 lists servers in a specific directory with optional filters, which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching a single protocol, listing servers, searching glossary terms, and searching the protocol catalog. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (get_protocol, list_mcp_servers, search_glossary, search_protocols), making them predictable.
4 tools is on the lower side but appropriate for an informational directory. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy.
Covers the main information retrieval needs: get single protocol, search protocols, search glossary, list related servers. Missing an explicit 'list all protocols' but search_protocols likely fills that gap.