Search all indexed agent registries at once.
Args:
query: capability keywords, e.g. "pdf extraction", "solana rpc", "payments"
remote_only: only return services callable over the network right now
limit: max results (1-50)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| remote_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the search spans all indexed registries and clarifies remote_only and limit behavior, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only semantics, authentication needs, rate limits, or result behavior. 'Search' implies a safe read operation, but the tool does not state this.
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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose followed by a tight Args block. Every line earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 search tool with an output schema available, the description covers purpose and all three parameters well. It lacks explicit guidance on result semantics and sibling-tool differentiation, but given the output schema and low complexity, the remaining gaps are minor.
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 fully compensates. It explains query with capability keywords and concrete examples, remote_only with precise semantics of network-callable services, and limit with a range of 1-50. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.
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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Search all indexed agent registries at once.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like call_service and quote_call, which imply direct invocation rather than registry discovery.
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 alternatives such as index_stats or service_evidence. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or context for selecting search_agents over sibling 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.
Each tool covers a distinct stage of the workflow: discovery (search_agents), marketplace-level data (index_stats), per-service evidence (service_evidence), pricing/authorization (quote_call), and execution (call_service). There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tool purposes.
Three tools use a clear verb_noun pattern (call_service, quote_call, search_agents), but index_stats and service_evidence are noun phrases. The names are readable and snake_case is consistent, but the convention is mixed rather than uniform.
Five tools is well-scoped for a service gateway: search, evidence, stats, quote, and call. Each tool has a clear role and no tool feels redundant or unnecessary.
The toolset covers the full agent-facing lifecycle: discovering services, inspecting evidence and index totals, obtaining payment quotes, and executing calls with signed receipts. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations within the stated domain.