Provides tools for extracting full content from arXiv articles and searching for research papers, with support for strict-mode filters to enforce research domains.
Hosts the MCP server source code repository, providing access to documentation, issues, and contributions for the Vybsly MCP integration.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Vybsly MCP what's the current price of Bitcoin and recent crypto news?"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Works with Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf, or any MCP-compatible client.
Other search APIs return snippets. Vybsly returns up to 30,000 characters of clean, extracted content per result — the full page, ready for RAG and agent context. No scraping, no follow-up fetches.
29M+ web pages indexed with full content
25M+ encyclopedia articles (federated search via /knowledge)
Strict mode: enforce research/news/educational domains with allowlists
Real-time data: stocks, crypto, weather, news, sports odds, maps
8× cheaper than Tavily, $9/mo for 10,000 queries
Related MCP server: Gemini Google Web Search MCP
npm install -g vybsly-mcpOr use directly with npx:
npx vybsly-mcpSign up free at vybsly.ai/developers.html — 1,000 free queries/month, no credit card required.
Edit ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json (macOS) or %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json (Windows):
{
"mcpServers": {
"vybsly": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "vybsly-mcp"],
"env": {
"VYBSLY_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
}
}
}
}Restart Claude Desktop. Vybsly tools will appear in the tool picker.
Add to your .cursor/mcp.json or equivalent:
{
"mcpServers": {
"vybsly": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "vybsly-mcp"],
"env": { "VYBSLY_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here" }
}
}
}Tool | Purpose |
| Full-content web search with strict-mode filters |
| Federated web + encyclopedia search |
| Extract full content from any URL (JS-rendered) |
| Ask a question, get a sourced AI answer |
| Live stock prices |
| Live cryptocurrency data |
| Current weather + 5-day forecast |
| Recent news articles |
| Live sports betting lines |
| Address → coordinates |
| Turn-by-turn driving directions |
"Search for recent CRISPR research papers only" → uses
vybsly_searchwithresearch=true, strict=true
"What's Einstein's most famous equation?" → uses
vybsly_knowledge— gets encyclopedia + web results
"Extract the article at https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00001" → uses
vybsly_extract— returns full markdown
"What's AAPL trading at and how's the weather in NYC?" → uses
vybsly_stocks+vybsly_weatherin parallel
Variable | Description | Default |
| Your API key (optional for free tier) | (none) |
| API base URL |
|
Free: 1,000 queries/month, 50/day
Starter ($9/mo): 10,000/month
Pro ($29/mo): 50,000/month
Business ($99/mo): 250,000/month
Enterprise: Contact sales
Upgrade anytime at vybsly.ai/developers.html.
Website: vybsly.ai
API docs: vybsly.ai/docs.html
Developer portal: vybsly.ai/developers.html
MIT © Blue Fusion Labs
Ask a question, get a sourced AI answer (like Perplexity). Returns a synthesized answer plus the source URLs used.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes | The question to answer | |
| max_sources | No | How many sources to cite (default 5) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only reveals that it produces a synthesized answer with source URLs. It omits behavioral traits such as follow-up handling, source selection logic, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are critical for safe invocation.
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, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose and output without extraneous information. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose and return format. It could optionally detail citation style or response structure, but the current level suffices for basic understanding.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond confirming that 'question' is the query and 'max_sources' controls citation count, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states the tool's function: 'Ask a question, get a sourced AI answer (like Perplexity).' It uses a familiar analogy and specifies the output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely provide raw search results or specific data.
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 versus alternatives like vybsly_search or vybsly_knowledge. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context where this tool is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Live cryptocurrency prices and market data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Crypto ticker, e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states 'Live... market data' but does not disclose whether data is read-only, rate limits, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.
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 words. It could include more useful detail without becoming verbose.
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?
With no output schema and minimal description, the tool lacks information on what exactly is returned (e.g., price, market cap, volume). The description feels incomplete for a data retrieval 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'symbol' parameter. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (same examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Live cryptocurrency prices and market data' clearly identifies the resource (cryptocurrency) and action (retrieving prices/data). It distinguishes from siblings like vybsly_stocks by resource type, though it could be more specific.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The context of sibling tools (e.g., vybsly_stocks) implies differentiation by asset class, but the description does not state this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get turn-by-turn driving directions between two places.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | Yes | ||
| to | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description fails to disclose output format, traffic consideration, or whether it supports multiple routes. For a read operation, more detail is needed.
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 sentence that is efficient and to the point, with no unnecessary words.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter info, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand what the tool returns or how to invoke it correctly.
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 has 0% description coverage; description adds no format guidance for 'from' and 'to' (e.g., address, city, coordinates), leaving semantics ambiguous.
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 states the tool provides turn-by-turn driving directions between two places, distinguishing it from siblings like geocode (coordinates) or search (general queries).
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 on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., geocode for coordinates) or prerequisites (e.g., valid place names). The agent must infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Extract full content from any URL with JavaScript rendering. Returns clean markdown/text, title, description, images, and links. Works on React/Vue SPAs. Use when you need content from a specific URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to extract (required) | |
| format | No | Output format |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses key behavior (JavaScript rendering, works on SPAs) and output types (markdown/text, title, description, images, links). Lacks info on authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects.
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?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. First sentence states action and key feature (JS rendering), second sentence provides usage context. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Covers purpose, usage context, output content, and key behavior. Lacks details on error handling, limits, or edge cases, but for a simple extraction tool with clear schema, it is fairly complete.
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 coverage 100% means schema already describes both parameters. Description adds value by stating what the output contains (clean markdown/text, title, description, etc.), which goes beyond the schema's definitions.
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?
Describes specific verb 'extract' and resource 'URL content', highlights JavaScript rendering for SPAs, and distinguishes from sibling tools like vybsly_search and vybsly_knowledge by focusing on extracting content from a specific URL.
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?
Explicitly states 'Use when you need content from a specific URL', providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternative siblings, leaving some guidance gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Convert a street address or place name into latitude/longitude coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Address or place name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic conversion without disclosing limitations, error handling, or accuracy. For a geocoding tool, more detail is needed.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Adequate for a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema. Explains input and output, but could mention return format or handling of invalid addresses.
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 description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states verb ('Convert') and resource ('street address or place name into latitude/longitude coordinates'). It is distinct from sibling tools like directions or search.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., directions, search). No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Federated search: web index + structured encyclopedia in one call. Returns results tagged by source (vybsly/vybpedia). Best for factual questions needing both breadth (web) and authority (encyclopedia).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (required) | |
| limit | No | Total max results (default 10) | |
| strict | No | ||
| research | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns results tagged by source, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, but for a read-only search tool, the provided information is sufficient.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no fluff or redundancy.
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 description is adequate for a simple search tool but lacks detail on output structure (no output schema) and does not fully cover the parameters (50% coverage). The key differentiator (source tagging) is mentioned, but the return format is left implicit.
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 50% (two of four parameters lack descriptions: strict and research). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It fails to clarify the role of the undocumented boolean parameters, which is a significant gap.
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 states that the tool performs a federated search combining a web index and an encyclopedia, and that results are tagged by source. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vybsly_search and vybsly_news by specifying its best use case for factual questions needing both breadth and authority.
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?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: for 'factual questions needing both breadth (web) and authority (encyclopedia).' While it implies when not to use it (e.g., for simple web searches), it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to use sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent news articles with publish dates. Use for time-sensitive queries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| hours | No | Max article age in hours (default 24) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It only states it returns articles with publish dates, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication, pagination, or behavior on empty results.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste. Efficiently conveys purpose and usage hint.
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?
Adequate for a simple 2-param tool with no output schema, but lacks details on return structure, error handling, or scope of 'recent'.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond tying the tool to time-sensitive queries. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it returns 'recent news articles' for 'time-sensitive queries', distinguishing it from siblings like vybsly_search (general search) and vybsly_knowledge (factual knowledge).
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?
Explicitly says 'Use for time-sensitive queries', guiding the agent on appropriate context. However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Live sports betting odds from multiple bookmakers (FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM). Useful for sports analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sport | No | nba, nfl, mlb, nhl, ufc, mma | |
| team | No | Filter by team or fighter name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it fails to mention limitations such as data freshness, latency, coverage scope, error handling, or what happens when no odds are found. The behavior is under-specified for a live data tool.
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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and utility. No extraneous information is present, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more completeness about return values, coverage, or typical use. It covers the basic purpose but leaves gaps about behavior and output format, which are critical for an agent.
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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described adequately. The description adds context about the bookmakers but does not enhance the understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states it provides live sports betting odds from named bookmakers (FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM) and specifies its utility for sports analysis. The verb 'get' is implied, and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools which cover different domains.
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?
The description mentions 'useful for sports analysis' as a guidance, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor does it compare with alternatives (though no direct alternatives exist among siblings). It lacks context like prerequisites or suggested use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Full-content web search across 29M+ pages. Returns up to 30K chars per result — perfect for RAG and agent context. Supports strict-mode filters (research/news/educational) and federation with encyclopedia.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (required) | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-50, default 10) | |
| mode | No | agent = structured output with key_facts and entities | |
| strict | No | Enforce filter allowlists instead of fuzzy matching | |
| research | No | Only research papers (arxiv, nature, pubmed) | |
| news | No | Only news outlets (Reuters, AP, BBC) | |
| educational | No | Only tutorials/docs (MDN, MIT OCW) | |
| source | No | Restrict to a specific domain, e.g. wikipedia.org | |
| lang | No | Language filter (en, es, fr, de, ja, zh) | |
| strict_fallback | No | Auto-retry relaxed when strict returns too few |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses result size, strict-mode filters, and federation, but lacks details on rate limits, auth, error handling, or behavior of strict_fallback parameter.
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?
Two sentences efficiently cover core function, result size, and filter capabilities. No wasted words; information is front-loaded.
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?
Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and major features but omits output format beyond char count, error handling, and integration details for federation.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual value by explaining 'agent' mode yields structured output with key_facts and entities, and groups filters conceptually. This exceeds mere schema repetition.
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 states the tool performs full-content web search across 29M+ pages, specifies result size, and highlights RAG/agent suitability. This distinguishes it from siblings like vybsly_ask or vybsly_knowledge.
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?
The description implies use for RAG and agent context with high-character results, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or list alternatives among siblings. Usage is implied but not fully contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Live stock prices for one or more ticker symbols. Auto-saves to historical almanac for trend lookups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbols | Yes | Comma-separated tickers, e.g. AAPL,TSLA,NVDA |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses an important behavioral trait—automatic saving to a historical almanac for trend lookups—beyond the absent annotations. This adds transparency, though it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or other potential side effects.
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 exceptionally concise with two sentences that contain no filler. Every part adds value: the core functionality and a notable side effect (auto-saving).
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fully adequate. It covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral aspect, leaving no critical gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'symbols' parameter as comma-separated tickers. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for a well-documented schema.
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 states it provides live stock prices for one or more ticker symbols, with a specific verb 'get live stock prices' and resource 'tickers'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vybsly_crypto or vybsly_news, which cover different domains.
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?
While the description implies usage for stock price retrieval, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear from the name, but no when-not-to-use or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current weather and 5-day forecast for a city.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City name, e.g. Miami or "New York" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, error handling, or rate limits. With the full burden on the description, this is insufficient.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.
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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on response format, units, or error cases.
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?
The input schema already describes the city parameter with examples; the description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states it provides current weather and 5-day forecast for a city, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like stocks or news.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the purpose implies it is for weather queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each tool has a unique and distinct purpose, clearly differentiated by name and description. No two tools overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool.
All tools follow a consistent 'vybsly_<noun>' pattern in snake_case, with verbs implicit in the noun (e.g., 'ask', 'search'). This provides a predictable and uniform naming convention.
With 11 tools, the server offers a broad range of capabilities without being overwhelming. However, the scope is quite broad (crypto, directions, weather, etc.), which might feel slightly unfocused, but the count itself is appropriate.
The server covers many common user needs (search, news, weather, stocks, etc.), but lacks some typical assistant features like email or calendar integration. Nonetheless, it provides a solid set for general queries.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Live AI-native web search with citations. One tool for every MCP client. Flat per-request pricing.
Hosted MCP server for live public-data APIs and Skills for AI agents.
Docs: https://docs.keenable.ai/mcp-server Keenable is a free, remote MCP server that gives agents access to the web index. Search the web with ranked results and date/site filters, then fetch any indexed page as clean markdown. Works out of the box with no account or API key.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BlueFusionLab/vybsly-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
