Xynaptic Artisan Search — find active, officially registered French tradespeople by trade and department. Usage: Use to find French tradespeople by trade (plombier, electricien, menuisier...) and department, official registry only. [price: $0.020 per call, x402/USDC]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes | query parameters |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / params / properties / dept / descriptionPrevious value: -"example: \"69\""New value: +"required. example: \"69\""Input schema / properties / params / properties / trade / descriptionPrevious value: -"example: \"plombier\""New value: +"required. example: \"plombier\""Input schema / properties / params / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "trade",
+ "dept"
+]Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[]New value: +[
+ "params"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the pricing model ([$0.020 per call, x402/USDC]) and the registry-filtering behavior ('active, officially registered'), but says nothing about return format, result limits, or pagination.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping. 'Xynaptic' branding and the slight redundancy between 'officially registered' and 'official registry only' are minor wastes, but the size is appropriate.
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?
For a simple two-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and registry filtering, which is enough to invoke correctly. It stops short of describing returned fields or result volume, leaving a modest gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so the nested trade/dept fields and their examples are already documented. The description adds trade examples (plombier, electricien, menuisier) but no new syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'find active, officially registered French tradespeople by trade and department.' It also pins the scope ('official registry only'), so an agent can tell exactly what this returns versus generic search siblings like company-search or tender-search.
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 'Usage:' sentence indicates when to use it (finding French tradespeople by trade/department), but it mostly restates the purpose rather than giving conditions or alternatives. No when-not guidance or sibling routing is provided, though no close sibling exists.
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.