dev_toolsAI developer tools (frameworks, libraries, databases) with weekly downloads, stars and growth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | growth | |
| limit | No | ||
| category | No | a category key such as 'agents', 'inference', 'rag-vector', 'ml', 'coding' (omit for all) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the data returned (downloads, stars, growth), but it does not mention sorting defaults, pagination, or rate 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to gaps covered under other dimensions rather than being a conciseness flaw.
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 has only three optional parameters, an output schema, and full annotations, so the description is minimally sufficient to identify the resource. However, it omits how sorting and limiting work and provides no usage context relative to siblings, leaving clear gaps for a filtered listing tool.
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 only 33%, with only the category parameter documented in the schema. The description mentions metrics that loosely map to sort enum values but does not explain the sort parameter, limit behavior, or default sorting, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 identifies the resource clearly: AI developer tools including frameworks, libraries, and databases, along with the metrics weekly downloads, stars, and growth. It does not explicitly state the operation (list/rank/retrieve) and does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_tool or trending, which keeps it below 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 this tool versus alternatives like get_tool, trending, or search. The description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selecting this tool over its siblings.
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.