search_mcp_serversKeyword + semantic search across every MCP server mcpindex indexes. Use when the user knows what tool category they want but not which server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, max 50). | |
| query | Yes | Search query. | |
| category | No | Optional category filter (e.g. database, browser, github). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the duty to disclose behavior. It mentions search type ('keyword + semantic') but does not reveal return format, pagination, ordering, or any limitations/freshness. A search tool's read-only nature is implied, but more transparency would be valuable.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Keyword + semantic search'), and every word contributes purpose or usage guidance. No redundancy or fluff.
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?
For a simple 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it searches, scope, and when to use it. It does not specify result contents, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity and sibling names that hint at follow-up actions.
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 each parameter has a description, providing a baseline of 3. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema (e.g., 'semantic' implies natural language query and 'category' hints at filtering), but does not systematically enrich parameter understanding.
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 ('every MCP server'), and scope ('mcpindex indexes'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like assess_server or compare_servers. The mention of 'keyword + semantic' adds further precision.
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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'when the user knows what tool category they want but not which server.' This is clear context, though it does not enumerate alternatives or exclusions. Given sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, this suffices.
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: server-level assessment vs tool-level trust, comparison vs installation, task-based recommendation vs search. No two tools overlap significantly.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
Six tools is well-scoped for a server discovery and evaluation service, covering search, recommendation, comparison, trust assessment, and installation without excess.
The tool set covers the core workflows of finding, evaluating, and installing MCP servers. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated 'get server details' tool, but search likely covers this need.