Single entrypoint for MCP catalog. action=search returns available tools ordered by relevance. action=describe returns tool schema. action=invoke executes a tool by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| action | No | search | |
| queries | No | ||
| tool_id | No | ||
| arguments | No | {} | |
| min_score | No | ||
| force_reindex | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are uninformative (all hints false). The description reveals three actions but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, side effects of invoke, rate limits, or idempotency. For a tool with a mutation action, more transparency is needed.
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 very concise: two sentences that effectively communicate the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the key concept ('single entrypoint') and presents actions in a clear, structured manner.
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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how to combine parameters. Agents lack sufficient context to use the tool effectively.
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%. The description mentions 'action' and 'tool_id' but ignores parameters like query, queries, arguments, min_score, force_reindex. It adds minimal meaning beyond 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 identifies the tool as the single entrypoint for the MCP catalog, listing three distinct actions (search, describe, invoke) with specific purposes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which have different functions.
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 as the main catalog interface but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but guidance is minimal.
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.
marketplace and search_tools have significant overlap, with both covering search, describe, and invoke actions for the MCP catalog. connect and toolkit_info also both provide connection/status information, creating ambiguity about which to use for state checks.
Tool names mix verb-only (authenticate, connect), noun-only (marketplace), and verb_noun patterns (report_bug, search_tools, show_version, toolkit_info). There is no consistent convention, making the naming feel chaotic.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a management/marketplace utility. However, the broad marketplace tool bundles many sub-operations that could arguably be split, and the server name 'Olist Tiny ERP' suggests a completely different domain, making the count feel misaligned with expectations.
Within the MCP management domain, the tools cover authentication, connection status, catalog search/execution, version info, and bug reporting. Gaps include no dedicated tool for managing installed MCP configurations or direct access controls beyond what's bundled in marketplace. The server name implies ERP functionality entirely absent, making the surface incomplete for the stated name.