MCP Registry Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return content (all versions, remotes, packages, tools) but does not mention error behavior (e.g., server not found), authentication requirements, or potential side effects. It adds some context but lacks important behavioral details.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase adds value. No wasted 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?

For a simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value scope. It could be improved with edge-case handling, but overall it is complete enough for basic use.

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 schema fully describes the single 'name' parameter with an example, and the description repeats the same example without adding new meaning. Per the baseline for 100% schema coverage, this is adequate but not enhanced by the description.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full metadata for a specific MCP server by its reverse-DNS name, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list or search. It also specifies the return content (versions, remotes, packages, tools), leaving no ambiguity.

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 use when you have a known reverse-DNS name and need detailed metadata, which distinguishes it from listing or searching. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds pagination behavior and the presence of next_cursor, but doesn't mention potential concerns like authentication, rate limits, or the default latest_only=true which might conflict with the phrase 'all MCP servers'. It's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first states the purpose, the second explains pagination, both earning their place. Excellent conciseness and front-loading.

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 list tool, it covers purpose and pagination, but lacks an output schema and doesn't describe the response shape beyond the cursor. The 'all MCP servers' wording introduces slight ambiguity given the latest_only parameter. It's sufficient but not fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema; the only connection is the next_cursor mention which relates to the cursor parameter but isn't a semantic enrichment. It meets the baseline.

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 ('Browse') and resource ('all MCP servers in the registry'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_mcp_server_details (single server) and search_mcp_registry (search). The pagination mention further clarifies its listing purpose.

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?

It provides clear context for use (browsing all servers with pagination) and explicit instruction on using next_cursor for subsequent pages. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it, falling short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description is responsible for disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that it returns matching servers with endpoint URL, transport type, and description, which is a key behavioral trait. 'Find' and 'Returns' imply a read-only operation, giving the agent confidence that no modifications occur. It does not cover potential edge cases like pagination, but the schema handles limit description.

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?

Two sentences convey the entire purpose and return value. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary words. Excellent conciseness.

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 description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and return fields for a simple 2-parameter search tool. With no output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect in the response. It does not explain ordering or pagination details, but those are not critical for a basic search and are partially covered by the limit parameter in the schema.

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 schema descriptions cover both parameters (query and limit) at 100%, so the description adds minimal new meaning. The description provides examples like 'weather' and 'github', but the schema already has similar examples, making this largely redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it finds servers by keyword or name, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also specifies what is returned (endpoint URL, transport type, description), and the search behavior distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mcp_servers and get_mcp_server_details.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (searching by keyword or name) with examples. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when NOT to use this search, so it lacks explicit exclusions but still provides a clear use case.

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