Search shared Grok Bots by what they do. Credit the creator. No prompt text.
Scored across 7 tools
Each tool targets a distinct operation: fetching by slug, browsing newest, listing categories, viewing top-voted, checking own submissions, searching, and submitting. There is no meaningful overlap that would confuse an agent selecting among them.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_bot, list_categories, search_bots, submit_bot. The exceptions are 'latest' and 'most_voted', which are descriptive list names rather than verb commands, creating a minor inconsistency but not a serious usability problem.
Seven tools is a well-scoped size for a directory server. Each tool covers a meaningful part of browsing, searching, and submitting listings without unnecessary redundancy.
The server covers the main directory workflows: discover, search, browse categories, view community signals, check submissions, and submit a bot. It lacks update/delete capabilities for listings, but those may be intentionally handled outside the MCP surface.
Fetch one public listing by slug. Credits the creator X post and carries the listing's votes and adds. ShareGrokBots does not test, score, or review the bots it lists. Never returns prompt text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds valuable context: the tool credits the creator X post, includes votes and adds, does not test/score/review bots, and never returns prompt text. This goes beyond annotations to set expectations about content, which is especially useful given no output schema.
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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, return details with social credit, and explicit exclusions. Information is front-loaded with the core action first, and there is no redundancy or filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter read operation with rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns (listing with votes/adds), what the tool does (credits creator), what it does not do (test/score/review), and a critical exclusion (never returns prompt text). The lack of an output schema is compensated by the description's clarity on content. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description uses 'by slug' to explain the slug parameter's purpose, adding meaning beyond the bare schema definition. It does not specify the slug format or constraints, but for a single required parameter, the description provides adequate semantic context.
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?
States a precise action (fetch one public listing) with a clear resource (by slug), and adds distinguishing detail about crediting the creator X post and carrying votes/adds. The sibling tools like list_categories and search_bots are clearly different, so there is no 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?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when a specific public listing by slug is needed, as opposed to browsing categories or searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context signals of sibling tools make the use case clear. A minor gap is not explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., if you need to search), but the single-listing focus is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Newest public listings, newest first. Each carries its votes and adds. ShareGrokBots does not test, score, or review the bots it lists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readonly/idempotent/safe behavior; the description adds useful non-obvious context by stating each listing carries votes and adds and that ShareGrokBots does not test, score, or review listed bots. This goes beyond the annotation-only safety picture, though it omits details like pagination or limit behavior.
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?
Three short sentences deliver the core purpose, the included fields, and an important caveat; the most important information is front-loaded. There is no filler.
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 covers the resource, ordering, item fields, and the lack of vetting, which is strong for a simple read-only tool. However, with no output schema and no description of `limit`, the agent is left to guess a parameter that may affect invocation and result size.
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 0%, and the description never mentions the sole `limit` parameter. Nothing in the description compensates for the schema's silence, so the agent gets no help understanding what limit controls.
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 identifies the resource ('public listings') and the ordering ('newest first'), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like most_voted. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'fetch,' so it stops just short of a top score.
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 its use case: anyone wanting the newest public listings. It does not mention when to prefer alternatives such as most_voted or search_bots, nor does it state any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the categories used to file listings, grouped as market or trades. Old slugs appear under aliases.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about grouping and the fact that old slugs appear under aliases, which aids result interpretation, but adds nothing else beyond that.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the additional detail about grouping and aliases earns its place.
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 parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool returns and how the data is organized. Nothing critical is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the parameter space. The description does not need to add parameter-specific semantics, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is met.
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 and resource: 'List the categories used to file listings'. It adds concrete detail about grouping ('market or trades') and alias behavior, making it clearly distinct from the sibling bot-focused tools.
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 the tool's usage by explaining what it lists, and the category focus naturally separates it from the bot-related siblings. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what contexts make it appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Listings the community voted up, most votes first. Votes come from signed-in members, one per person per bot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: results are sorted by vote count, and votes are limited to one per signed-in member per bot. The readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations are consistent with a simple read/list operation.
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 concise at two sentences and front-loads the core behavior. The first sentence has a minor grammar issue ('Listings the community voted up'), but no redundant filler or schema repetition exists.
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 read-only list endpoint with one optional parameter, the description covers the main idea and ordering well. However, the complete lack of guidance on the 'limit' parameter leaves a notable gap, even though an agent can safely call the tool without providing it.
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?
There is one parameter, 'limit', with 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions 'limit', its default, its effect on the result count, or how it interacts with the ordering. Since schema coverage is low, the description was responsible for explaining this parameter and did not.
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 identifies a specific resource ('listings the community voted up') and a clear ordering ('most votes first'). It is understandable even if grammatically awkward, and it clearly differs from siblings like 'latest' and 'search_bots' by emphasizing community voting and vote-based ranking.
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 context is implied: use this tool when you need community-voted listings in vote order. However, it does not explicitly tell an agent when not to use it or mention alternatives such as 'latest' or 'search_bots'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the member's submissions with status, votes, and adds. ShareGrokBots does not test, score, or review the bots it lists. Prompt text is never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: ShareGrokBots does not test, score, or review listed bots, and prompt text is never returned. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set accurate expectations.
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?
Three short sentences: the first states the core function, and the next two add important caveats without padding. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is 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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (status, votes, adds) and key behavioral nuances. It could be more complete by mentioning pagination or sorting, but these are not essential for a simple member-specific listing.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the parameter space. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the member's submissions,' and further specifies the fields returned (status, votes, adds). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_bot or search_bots, which target individual bots or general listings.
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 usage for viewing the current member's own submissions, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like search_bots or most_voted. The context is inferable from 'member's submissions' but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search public ShareGrokBots listings by text and optional category. Returns name, credit, live bot link, and the community signal: votes from signed-in members and adds from people who opened the bot through its listing. ShareGrokBots does not test, score, or review the bots it lists. Never returns prompt text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| category | No | (optional category) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints: the meaning of votes and adds, the fact that ShareGrokBots does not test or review bots, and the explicit guarantee that prompt text is never returned. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the purpose, then covers return fields, community signals, and critical negative constraints. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description does well by explaining the return payload and important caveats. However, it omits semantics for the limit parameter and does not describe pagination or result-list shape, which would make the tool fully self-explanatory.
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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the query parameter as text search and category as optional, but it never explains the limit parameter's meaning, default, or effect, leaving a real gap for agents.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a precise resource ('public ShareGrokBots listings') and a clear scoping mechanism (text and optional category). It also lists the distinctive return fields, which differentiates it from siblings like get_bot, latest, and list_categories.
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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when searching public listings by text or category. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Submit a public Grok bot page to the directory. Requires the creator X handle and the source X post URL. ShareGrokBots does not test, score, or review the bots it lists. Prompt text is never stored or returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| blurb | No | ||
| creator_handle | Yes | X handle of the bot creator | |
| source_post_url | Yes | x.com or twitter.com status URL that shared the bot |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover read-only, idempotency, and destructive hints, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: ShareGrokBots does not test, score, or review bots, and prompt text is never stored or returned. This helps set accurate expectations for a submission tool.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the required inputs, and the key behavioral caveats. No fluff or repetition of schema details.
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 gives enough to make a reasonable submission call, but it does not mention what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, listing ID, moderation delay) or how duplicates are handled. Since there is no output schema, a little more detail about the expected result would make it more 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 only 50%, and the description partially compensates by mapping 'public Grok bot page' to the url parameter and naming the creator handle and source post URL requirements. However, the blurb parameter still lacks semantic guidance beyond its maxLength constraint.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a public Grok bot page to the directory.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the read/list-oriented sibling tools such as get_bot, search_bots, and latest.
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 states prerequisites ('Requires the creator X handle and the source X post URL') and gives submission context, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than fully guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
my_listingssubmit_botget_botlatestlist_categoriesmost_votedsearch_botsRead-only search of community Grok Bot templates and guides. Unofficial; not affiliated with xAI.
Free search across ~35,000 agent tools (x402 bazaar + MCP registry) by plain-language need.
Search a curated, human-reviewed AI agent marketplace, and post what you could not find.
Search public social posts and web results from AI assistants.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
