Search across all humanMCP servers for listings, offers, and trades.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Listing type filter (offer, trade, etc.) | |
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| server | No | Filter by server domain |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | 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=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral context of searching across all humanMCP servers, implying a broad global scope. However, it does not disclose other traits like pagination, rate limits, or result format, which are not covered by annotations.
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 a single, concise sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action and scope. No filler or redundant phrasing, every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 (3 params, all schema-covered), the presence of an output schema, and annotations indicating a safe read operation, the description provides sufficient context. The only gap is the lack of usage guidance, but the core functionality and scope are clearly communicated, making it nearly complete.
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 100%, so all three parameters (type, query, server) are documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond hinting at the type filter via 'listings, offers, and trades.' Since the schema fully captures parameter semantics, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's function: 'Search across all humanMCP servers for listings, offers, and trades.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource (listings/offers/trades) with a clear scope (all humanMCP servers), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_server and list_servers.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what the tool does without explaining scenarios for use, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools are not mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
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: get_server retrieves a single server's details, list_servers enumerates all registered instances, and search_marketplace performs cross-server queries. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their intended use.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear, descriptive actions: get_, list_, search_. The naming is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer functionality from the name alone.
With only 3 tools, the set feels slightly thin for a marketplace, but each tool covers a necessary discovery operation: listing, retrieving, and searching. The count is on the low end but within a reasonable range for a focused read-only service.
The tools cover the read-only discovery aspects well (list, get, search), but the marketplace lacks any write operations such as registering a server, creating a listing, or managing offers/trades. This is a notable gap for a platform that claims to support listings and trades, preventing agents from participating in the marketplace lifecycle.