Skip to main content
Glama

MCP Verify

by io.sentinelsignal

search_servers

Read-only

Search and rank MCP servers by capability, auth preference, client target, and risk tolerance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of ranked candidates to return.
queryNoOptional free-text query to bias ranking toward a specific use case or domain.
capabilitiesNoNormalized capability taxonomy terms such as healthcare, search, read, exec, files, oauth, or prompts.
client_targetNoOptional target client or integration surface.
risk_toleranceNoHow much tool-surface risk is acceptable.
auth_preferenceNoPreferred auth mode. Use unauthenticated when the agent must avoid login flows.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers side-effect safety. The description adds 'rank', implying ordering, but does not disclose return format, pagination via the limit parameter, ranking algorithm, or any auth/rate-limit behavior. It contributes minimal behavioral context beyond what the annotation provides.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and efficiently names the key filtering dimensions. No wasted words; it earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does not state what is returned (e.g., list of server IDs with scores) or how limit interacts with ranking. It covers all parameters via the schema, but overall tool behavior is under-specified for a 6-parameter tool. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters have descriptions. The description's mention of four dimensions aligns with parameters but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches and ranks MCP servers, listing four specific criteria (capability, auth preference, client target, risk tolerance). This gives a specific verb+resource+scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like recommend_servers or search, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention recommend_servers, compare_servers, or any preconditions/exclusions. The description merely states the function without situational context, offering little help for tool selection among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All MCP Verify toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resources and actions (e.g., get_agent vs. get_drift_report). A few pairs like search/search_servers and fetch/get_server_report overlap in intent, but descriptions clarify differences in output and purpose. Agents may need to read carefully but can generally tell tools apart.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_agents, create_mandate, export_policy). The bare aliases 'fetch' and 'search' deviate slightly, but are clearly intentional, and there is no mix of camelCase or other styles. Overall consistent and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

22 tools is on the heavy side, falling into the '16-25' borderline range. While each tool appears to serve a distinct function, the set could be consolidated (e.g., the multiple 'get_*_options' tools). It is not excessive enough to be chaotic, but it is above the ideal 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows for server search, comparison, report generation, policy export, mandate creation, agent risk management, and decision-making. Minor gaps exist, such as no create/update/delete for most resources and no subscription creation, but the domain is read/decision-heavy and core lifecycle coverage is adequate.

Resources