Find servers by keyword or name (e.g. 'weather', 'github', 'database'). Returns matching servers with their endpoint URL, transport type, and description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (default 10, max 50) | |
| query | Yes | Keyword or name to search for (e.g. 'weather', 'stripe', 'postgres') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / latest_onlyRemoved value: -{
- "default": true,
- "description": "Only return the latest version of each server (default true)",
- "type": "boolean"
-}Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum number of results to return (1-100, default 10)"New value: +"Maximum number of results (default 10, max 50)"Input schema / properties / limit / maximumPrevious value: -100New value: +50Input schema / properties / query / descriptionPrevious value: -"Natural language search query"New value: +"Keyword or name to search for (e.g. 'weather', 'stripe', 'postgres')"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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: searching by keyword, listing all servers, and fetching detailed metadata for a specific server. There is no overlap in functionality or ambiguity in choosing the right tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: get_mcp_server_details, list_mcp_servers, search_mcp_registry. The verbs (get, list, search) clearly indicate the action, and nouns describe the target.
Three tools is well-scoped for a registry search and discovery service. Each tool is essential for the core workflow, and the count fits comfortably within the ideal range.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of registry exploration: search to find servers, list to browse all, and get details to inspect a specific server. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of browsing and retrieving MCP server information.