Search the AgentStamp agent directory by query and/or category. Returns agents with reputation scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-100) | |
| query | No | Search term to match against agent names, descriptions, and capabilities | |
| category | No | Filter by category: data, trading, research, creative, infrastructure, other |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include reputation scores, but it does not clarify behavior when called with no query or category (schema allows it), nor does it mention rate limits, authentication, or return structure. This ambiguity is a significant transparency gap.
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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Search'), specifies the resource, and states the outcome. Every word contributes meaning with no fluff or redundancy.
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 is a simple search with optional filters, and the description covers the core purpose and result. However, it lacks details on behavior with no parameters, the exact return shape, and differentiation from sibling tools. The absence of an output schema increases the need for more descriptive completeness.
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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (limit, query, category) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 searches the AgentStamp agent directory by query and/or category, and specifies the return value (agents with reputation scores). It distinguishes from siblings like get_agent (specific agent) and browse_agents (browsing without search) through the explicit search/filter scope, though it does not 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?
The description implies when to use it: when searching with a query and/or category. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as browse_agents for unfiltered browsing, so usage context is implied but not fully articulated.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose, such as bridge_erc8004_lookup and bridge_erc8004_trust_check, trust_check, get_agent, and get_agent_reputation all returning trust or reputation data. Descriptions help clarify the distinctions, but the similarities could lead an agent to select the wrong tool.
Naming uses a mix of conventions: verb-noun (get_agent, search_agents), noun-first (compliance_report, dns_discovery), and prefix-based groupings (trust_*, bridge_*). While snake_case is consistent, the inconsistent verb/noun ordering and synonyms (lookup, check, verify) make it less predictable.
With 19 tools, the set is slightly heavy but still justified by the platform's broad feature set covering trust checks, reputation, teams, wishes, compliance, and credentials. Some tools could be merged (e.g., bridge_erc8004_lookup and bridge_erc8004_trust_check), but the count is not excessive for the apparent scope.
The tool surface focuses heavily on reading and checking trust data, but lacks obvious lifecycle operations such as updating or deleting agents, creating wishes, or managing endorsements. The presence of create_team without corresponding team management (update/delete) leaves a notable gap.
