swarme_capabilities_searchSearch the Swarme tool capability registry by keyword and category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| category | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but reveals only the basic operation. It does not disclose behavior such as default limits, result ordering, partial matching behavior, or whether empty queries are allowed. The description adds minimal context beyond a restatement of the name.
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?
A single, well-formed sentence that communicates the core purpose immediately with no filler or redundant phrasing. It earns its place and is structured effectively.
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 relatively simple search with an output schema and no required parameters, so minimal context suffices for basic invocation. However, the description does not clarify how this search differs from nearby sibling tools or what kinds of categories are valid, leaving some practical ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It explicitly maps 'query' to 'keyword' and 'category' to 'category', adding slight semantic value, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or how the parameters interact. Parameter names are self-descriptive, but the description doesn't fully fill the coverage gap.
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 a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('Swarme tool capability registry'), and the two main dimensions ('keyword and category'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools like swarme_discover_search, but the target registry is unambiguously identified.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus similar siblings such as swarme_discover_search or swarme_capability_describe. The description implies a general search use case but provides no context, exclusions, or selection criteria.
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.
Tools are grouped into distinct resource families (account, AI, capabilities, discover, experiments, tool runs, uploads, vault), so most are easy to tell apart. However, multiple 'status' tools and the two Vault metadata tools (documents and summary) could be confused without reading the descriptions carefully.
All tools share a consistent swarme_ prefix and snake_case style, making them predictable. The pattern is not uniformly verb_noun, and there is a plural mismatch between swarme_capabilities_search and swarme_capability_describe, but the naming is generally coherent.
22 tools is on the heavy side and above the typical 3-15 range for a focused MCP server. While the platform covers many domains and each tool has a role, several status-related tools could have been consolidated.
Core workflows like tool runs, experiments, AI model jobs, and Vault fills are well covered. Notable gaps remain: no cancellation for AI jobs or experiments, no listing endpoints for runs/experiments, no Vault field read/delete, and the upload session has no companion completion/status tool.