mcpd_find

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation by describing it as a search. It adds useful context about the return format (server IDs, relevance scores, matched tool names) and its role as a discovery tool. No contradictions.

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 convey purpose, output, and usage guidance. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the action and key details.

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 has no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return values (server IDs, relevance scores, matched tool names). It is complete for a search/discovery tool, and the sibling tools provide a clear context for its use in a workflow.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter meanings. However, it adds value by providing an example for the 'query' parameter ('E.g. 'create github issue', 'send slack message''), which helps the agent understand the expected input.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'MCP Nexus for MCP servers', and what it returns ('server IDs, relevance scores, and matched tool names'). It also distinguishes from siblings by advising 'Use this FIRST' as the discovery step before connecting or getting schema.

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 context to use this tool as the initial discovery step ('Use this FIRST to discover which MCP server to connect to'). It implies a specific workflow with sibling tools (mcpd_get_schema, mcpd_connect), though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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