Find motion recipes by effect, use case, category, or stack and return compact matches with IDs so you can select one and prepare it for implementation.
Find motion recipes by effect, use case, category, or stack. Returns compact matches; select an ID and call prepare_motion. No generation or network fetches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| stack | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| verifiedOnly | No | ||
| includeReferences | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world; the description reinforces this with "No generation or network fetches" and adds return-shape context ("compact matches"). That is useful but partially duplicative of openWorldHint=false, and pagination/limit behavior is not described.
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?
Three short sentences with zero padding, front-loading the search purpose before the next-step guidance and the negative constraint.
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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no per-parameter documentation, the description should explain the boolean filters and result-count behavior. It covers purpose, next step, and return brevity adequately, but leaves callers guessing about verifiedOnly, includeReferences, and limit defaults.
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 six parameters carry no inline semantics. The description implies the roles of query, category, and stack but says nothing about limit, verifiedOnly, or includeReferences, leaving half the surface undocumented.
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+resource ("Find motion recipes") and enumerates the retrieval dimensions (effect, use case, category, stack). It names the downstream sibling prepare_motion, though it never distinguishes itself from get_motion, which is the other adjacent read tool.
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?
Gives a clear follow-on path: "select an ID and call prepare_motion," which tells the agent this is a search-then-fetch flow. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or a direct comparison against get_motion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.