search_capabilitiesFind a tool by keyword across connected MCP servers. Search on demand instead of listing every tool, with optional server filtering and result limits.
Find a tool by keyword across every connected server. Cheaper than listing them all when you know roughly what you are looking for.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max results, default 8 | |
| query | Yes | ||
| server | No | optional: search one server only |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful cost/performance signal ('cheaper than listing them all'), but says nothing about result format, ranking, or pagination behavior.
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 tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the cost tradeoff immediately follows.
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 rich annotations, the description covers enough for correct invocation: what it searches, the scope, and the cost tradeoff versus listing. It does not say whether it matches tool names, descriptions, or both, which is a minor remaining gap.
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 67%; 'limit' and 'server' are documented in the schema, but the required 'query' param has no schema description. The phrase 'by keyword' partially compensates by telling the agent what to put in query, but no syntax, matching rules, or scoping details are added.
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?
Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Find a tool by keyword across every connected server.' It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the listing sibling by contrasting with 'listing them all,' though it never names list_capabilities directly.
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 selection condition ('when you know roughly what you are looking for') and implies the when-not case by comparing itself to listing everything. No alternative sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.