Search Fiverr gigs by keyword: normalized gig summaries (title, seller username, seller level, rating, review count, starting price, category, thumbnail image).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | ||
| page | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by listing the normalized gig fields returned (seller level, rating, review count, etc.), but says nothing about pagination behavior or result limits.
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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and scope before the return-field detail; nothing is wasted, though the trailing field list is fairly long.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape need not be re-explained, and annotations cover safety. For a simple two-parameter search the description is passable, but the undocumented page parameter and absent usage routing leave gaps.
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 must carry parameter meaning. 'By keyword' loosely maps to q, but the page parameter and its pagination semantics are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 (Search) and resource (Fiverr gigs) scoped by keyword, and enumerates the returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the fiverr_gig and fiverr_seller detail siblings, so an agent must infer it is the list/search entry point.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the related gig/seller tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that this is the discovery entry point versus the detail tools.
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.
