swarme_discover_searchSearch public, active, owner-verified Swarme Passports. Unlisted and private records are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful filtering behavior beyond the tool name: only public, active, owner-verified passports are returned, and unlisted/private ones are excluded. This is genuinely useful behavioral context for a search tool.
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 crisp sentences with zero filler. The core scope and exclusions are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaningful information.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a 5-parameter search API with no annotations and no schema-level parameter descriptions. An agent cannot reliably know how to construct queries, whether host is a filter, or what page and limit control beyond their obvious names. The description covers scope but not request semantics.
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%, and the description adds nothing about the five parameters (query, host, page, type, limit). It does not explain how filtering works, what query searches against, how pagination behaves, or how type interacts with the search. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource ('public, active, owner-verified Swarme Passports'). It also defines the excluded scope ('Unlisted and private records are excluded'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishing it from siblings like swarme_discover_read.
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 clearly frames when this tool is appropriate: searching public, active, owner-verified passports. It also gives a concrete exclusion by stating that unlisted and private records are not included. However, it does not explicitly point to an alternative such as swarme_discover_read for those excluded records.
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.