Find agent-ready open source repos for a task. Returns repos ranked by match, then OG score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | What you need, e.g. "decompile an APK" or "security audit" | |
| claimed | No | Only repos whose maintainer has claimed them (they have a payout address you can tip or pay) | |
| category | No | ||
| ecosystem | No | Only repos for this chain or platform | |
| interface | No | Only repos an agent can use this way |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are ranked by match then OG score, which is useful, but omits whether the operation is read-only (implied by search), what 'OG score' means, and any rate-limit or result-format details.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then return behavior. No wasted words, but it is extremely terse; a little more context could improve clarity without violating conciseness.
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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description only covers purpose and ranking. It does not explain 'agent-ready', 'OG score', or the shape of returned repo objects, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.
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 67% — query, claimed, ecosystem, and interface are documented in the schema, while limit and category are not. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states a specific verb (Find) and resource (open source repos) with a scope qualifier (agent-ready, for a task). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_repo (single repo) and trending (popularity-based) by implying task-oriented search, but it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied by 'for a task' and the ranking promise, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of get_repo, trending, or list_categories. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
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.