searchSearch 2,500+ hand-curated architecture, design, photography and art projects from Thisispaper. Returns a list of results with id, title and url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search terms, e.g. 'concrete chapel' or 'art exhibitions'. |
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?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return format (list with id, title, url) which is useful, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as result limits or pagination. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough: it specifies what the tool does, the domain, and the return format. Annotations cover safety and side effects. Minor missing details like filtering or limits do not degrade utility.
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 100% and includes examples for the query parameter. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about parameters, so a baseline 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 a curated collection of projects from Thisispaper and returns a list with id, title, and url. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_projects.
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 is for searching within the Thisispaper curated collection, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage context is clear but not elaborated.
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 significantly: search, search_projects, and browse all return project lists, and fetch and get_project both retrieve project details. An agent would struggle to choose the right tool without deep familiarity.
Tool names mix single verbs (browse, discover, fetch, search) with verb_noun compounds (get_api_key, get_project, list_guides, search_projects) and a few irregular forms (search_by_taste, similar_projects). No consistent pattern emerges.
With 10 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for an archive server. However, the presence of redundant tools (three search variants) suggests the set could be trimmed without losing capability.
The server covers core read-only archive workflows: browsing, searching, retrieving details, listing guides, finding similar projects, and API key provisioning. Minor gaps like pagination or category listing are not critical for the apparent purpose.