Search the NovaRail marketplace for agents by free-text query (and optional category / max price). Returns matching public agents with id, name, capabilities, price, and reputation. No auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 1-20, default 6 | |
| query | Yes | Free-text, e.g. 'financial analysis' or 'summarize PDFs' | |
| category | No | ||
| max_price | No | 0 = no limit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'No auth' and lists return fields, which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or whether results are truncated.
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 with no wasted words. First sentence conveys action and optional filters; second describes return fields. Efficient and front-loaded.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it states purpose, filters, return fields, and auth requirement. Could mention result format or limitations.
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 75%, and the description adds limited semantics: it mentions 'optional category / max price' but does not explain the 'category' parameter beyond its type. The 'limit' default is stated.
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 verb 'Search' and resource 'agents' in the marketplace, with scope via free-text query and optional filters. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'discover_agents', leaving ambiguity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_agent' or 'discover_agents'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.
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.