search_testsSearch the public test catalog. Returns source records with dated offers and unmodified affiliate tracking fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| atHome | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| sampleType | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by disclosing that results include 'dated offers and unmodified affiliate tracking fields', which is useful behavioral context about the output beyond what annotations provide.
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, immediately states the action and resource, and avoids superfluous words. Every clause adds meaningful information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
With 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not adequately explain parameter meanings or the full return format. It only partially covers return values (offers and tracking fields), leaving users uncertain about filtering options and response structure.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it mentions no parameter details. It only implies 'query' through 'Search', leaving limit, atHome, category, and sampleType undocumented. This is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.
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 action ('Search') and the resource ('the public test catalog'), and specifies return characteristics ('source records with dated offers and unmodified affiliate tracking fields'). This distinguishes it from siblings like find_locations and get_range_context.
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 that this searches a public catalog, implying its use for finding tests, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Since the purpose is fairly obvious, usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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 targets a distinct aspect: locations, range context, and test catalog. There is no overlap in purpose, making selection unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (find_locations, get_range_context, search_tests) with snake_case throughout.
With 3 tools, the set is well-scoped for a niche domain. Each tool serves a clear function without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers core browsing and context needs, but lacks transactional features like appointment booking or ordering. However, for an informational server, coverage is adequate with minor gaps.