search_agentsSearch the Agent Switchboard directory of vetted AI agents, MCP servers, and agentic tools. Returns relevance-ranked matches. Filter by category slug and/or access methods.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Free-text search (name, description, skills, tags) | |
| access | No | Require ALL of these access methods (api, mcp, cli, browser-extension) | |
| category | No | Category slug, e.g. "code-devtools", "voice-messaging" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries burden. It mentions relevance-ranking and filtering, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or whether results are sorted. No contradictions, but minimal additional behavioral context.
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, each serving a clear purpose: first states the function and scope, second describes output and filters. No extraneous 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?
The description is somewhat complete for a search tool, but lacks details about the output structure (no output schema provided). Knowing what fields are returned (e.g., agent ID, name, description) would help an agent use results correctly.
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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'Filter by category slug and/or access methods,' but this is already implied by the schema. It does not add new meaning beyond what's in the schema.
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 searches a directory of agents and tools, returns ranked results, and allows filtering. It distinguishes from siblings 'get_agent' and 'list_categories' by indicating it's a search with filtering.
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: when searching the directory. It mentions filtering by category and access. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude use cases like when an agent ID is known (use get_agent) or when listing categories (use list_categories).
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 distinct purpose: getting a single agent by slug, listing categories with counts, and searching the directory. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_agent, list_categories, search_agents) using snake_case, making them predictable.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for a directory browsing purpose. Each tool provides essential functionality without redundancy.
The read-only surface covers the main use cases: searching, getting details, and discovering categories. Missing a 'list all agents' tool is a minor gap, but search_agents flexible enough to compensate.