Search marketplace services by query string, category, or tags. Returns a list of matching active service listings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Filter by one or more tags. | |
| limit | No | Maximum results to return (default 20, max 100). | |
| query | No | Free-text search term for service name or description. | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default 0). | |
| category | No | Filter by service category. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds the context that only active service listings are returned, which is useful. Yet it does not disclose other behavioral details such as ordering, case sensitivity, or pagination behavior, earning a mid-range score.
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: one sentence stating the search dimensions and one clarifying that it returns active listings. No wasted words, 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?
For a read-only search tool with five optional params and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core behavior and result type. It could mention pagination or filtering semantics, but the schema already covers defaults, and the search purpose is clear.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for all five. The description merely repeats the search dimensions (query, category, tags) without adding deeper meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.
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'), identifies the resource ('marketplace services'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on query/category/tag-based search across active listings. It clearly differentiates from the 'get' and 'list_categories' 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 clearly states what search criteria can be used (query string, category, tags), implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use sibling tools like marketplace_get_service or marketplace_list_categories as alternatives, so it doesn't reach the top score.
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 targets a distinct resource and action: agent by ID, reputation records, service details, category listing, and search. There is no ambiguity between tool purposes.
All names follow a consistent 'marketplace_' prefix with verb_noun structure (get_agent, get_reputation, get_service, list_categories, search). The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a marketplace read-only server, covering lookup and search without unnecessary clutter. Each tool earns its place.
The read-only focus is complete for browsing and retrieving marketplace entities, but lacks explicit list operations for agents and services. Search fills this gap reasonably, so only minor gaps exist.