MCP-ADAPTER

search_tools

Search a catalog of over 15,000 documented tools, commands, and functions by keyword across engineering and design apps; filter by software, category, kind, or limit.

Instructions

Search the catalogs by keyword(s) across all applications or one; ranked by name/category/description matches.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes
`category`	No
`software`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the ranking behavior (by name/category/description matches), which is useful, but says nothing about scoping semantics, result limits, or how the 'applications' filter interacts with results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource and adds the ranking detail. Efficient, with no filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description leaves critical inputs (kind, limit, category) and scope behavior undocumented. Inadequate for this parameter count.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at keyword(s) (query) and applications (software) and ranking fields, but leaves kind, limit, and category entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so the meaning of 3 of 5 params is unaddressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (catalogs), and notes scope across all applications or one, ranked by name/category/description. It is clearly a keyword search, distinguishing it from list_tools and describe_tool, though it does not name siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'across all applications or one' implies a scoping choice, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g. use list_tools to enumerate vs search_tools to find by keyword). Usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.