Search StackSwap's catalog of ~400 GTM tools by name. Returns each match with its catalogued monthly cost and, when applicable, a StackSwap partner sign-up link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of results to return. | |
| query | No | Substring to match against tool names (case-insensitive). Omit to list top tools. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include monthly cost and partner link, and that the search is by name. However, it doesn't state read-only behavior, potential side effects (likely none), or limitations beyond name-only search, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately includes the key output details (cost and partner link). There is no filler or redundancy.
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 tool is simple, has no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains the return fields (cost, partner link) and the search target, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It could more explicitly define the result structure, but for a low-complexity search tool it is reasonably 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%, and both parameters (limit, query) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely saying 'by name' which aligns with the query parameter. 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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('StackSwap's catalog of ~400 GTM tools'), and scope ('by name'), and mentions the returned fields (cost, partner link). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_content and get_tool_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 implies when to use the tool (searching for tools by name) but provides no explicit 'when not to use' or references to alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_tool_details may be needed for full details, so usage is only implied.
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.