Find Baseframe Labs developer tools that fit a plain-language goal, ranked. Use this first when the user describes a problem (e.g. 'make my agent's PRs reviewable').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | What the user is trying to do. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It mentions 'ranked' but does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it's safe/read-only, how ranking works, or any limitations. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful behavioral transparency.
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 concise sentences that front-load the action and resource, and include a useful example. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition.
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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and usage. The example helps clarify expected user input. It could be more complete by describing the output (e.g., a ranked list of tool names), but overall it's sufficient for this tool's complexity.
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 already describes the single parameter 'goal' as 'What the user is trying to do.' The description adds value by clarifying it should be a 'plain-language goal' and provides a concrete example, enhancing the semantic understanding of what input is expected.
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 a specific verb ('find'), a specific resource ('Baseframe Labs developer tools'), and the tool's distinctive functionality (matching plain-language goals and returning ranked results). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_docs or list_products.
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 an explicit when-to-use instruction ('Use this first when the user describes a problem') with a concrete example. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'first' implies it should precede more specific tools, which is sufficient 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: find_tools searches by goal, list_products enumerates the catalogue, and get_docs/get_install/get_mcp_config retrieve different specific details for a product. No two tools overlap in intent or output, so an agent can accurately select the right one.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: find_tools, list_products, get_docs, get_install, get_mcp_config. The use of lowercase snake_case with clear verbs (find, list, get) creates a predictable and uniform naming convention.
Five tools is well-suited for a read-only catalogue server: one discovery search, one list operation, and three detail views (docs, install, config). This is neither too thin nor too heavy, and every tool serves a distinct informational purpose.
The catalogue domain is fully covered: users can explore all products (list_products), search by intent (find_tools), and retrieve each product's documentation (get_docs), installation command (get_install), and MCP configuration (get_mcp_config). There are no obvious missing operations for a non-mutable catalogue.
