Search and discover AI-ready websites from the international llms.txt directory using a read-only remote MCP server.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists the catalog, the other searches it. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their intended use, making misselection unlikely.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_catalog, search_catalog), which is predictable and easy to understand. Naming is uniform and follows a standard convention.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal, but for a read-only directory catalog, listing and searching cover the core functionality. The count is at the lower end of the acceptable range.
The tool surface covers the primary operations for a directory: browsing all entries and searching by name/URL. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no filters, categories, or detailed views), but the core read-only workflow is complete.
Get approved sites in the llmsmap.ru catalog with llms.txt URLs, token counts, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of sites to return, capped at 50. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only operation and specifies return contents, but it does not disclose default result size, ordering, pagination, or the behavior when no limit is provided.
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 a single sentence with the action and resource front-loaded, and no redundant or filler wording. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose.
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 one-parameter list tool with a documented schema and no output schema, the description adequately states the resource and return contents. It could be slightly more complete by specifying default behavior and the relationship to search_catalog, but it is sufficient for basic invocation.
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%: the only parameter, limit, already has a description including the 50 cap. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('approved sites in the llmsmap.ru catalog'), and it lists the returned fields. It clearly implies a listing operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_catalog, which prevents a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use list_catalog versus search_catalog, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The agent can only infer from the tool name that list is for broad browsing and search is for targeted queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the llmsmap.ru catalog by product name or URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of sites to return, capped at 50. | |
| query | Yes | Search term (product name or part of URL). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to carry the burden, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the primitive action (search) without mentioning read-only status, rate limits, result formatting, or error behavior. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves the agent without important context.
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 one concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. There is no redundant wording or filler; every word contributes to clarifying what the tool does.
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 simple (2 parameters, all described), but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not mention the return format, pagination, or any caveats. It is minimally adequate for a basic search tool but leaves the agent without expectations about the response.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'by product name or URL' aligns with the query parameter but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states. Limit is not mentioned in the description, but the schema fully describes it.
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 identifies the action (search), the resource (llmsmap.ru catalog), and the search criteria (product name or URL). It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling list_catalog, but the verb 'search' implicitly contrasts with 'list', so it is more than vague.
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 provided on when to use this tool instead of list_catalog. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose between the two tools. The usage is only implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
list_catalogsearch_catalog
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.