Search connected MCP servers for tools that match a task and return compact signatures, with optional parameter schemas, to reduce tool-list overhead.
Find tools on the connected servers for a task. Returns compact signatures (* = required).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| k | No | How many tools (default 5). | |
| query | Yes | What you want to do, in a few words. | |
| detail | No | Also return the parameter schemas. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive, read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds scope (connected servers) and return format details (compact signatures with * marking required parameters), but does not cover rate limits, pagination, or other behavioral context.
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 no wasted words, and the main purpose is front-loaded. The return-format note is compact and useful.
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 that the schema is fully documented and annotations cover safety, the description is nearly complete for this simple discovery tool. It could better explain how the tool relates to atr_call or what 'compact signatures' look like, but it gives enough context to invoke and interpret results.
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 parameter semantics are adequately documented in the schema itself. The description does not add meaningful detail about query, k, or detail beyond what is already structured.
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 states a specific verb and resource: finding tools on connected servers for a task. It is clear enough to distinguish discovery from execution tools like atr_call, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from any sibling.
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 phrase 'for a task' implies the discovery use case, but the description does not say when to use this instead of atr_call or other siblings. No explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.