Find MCP servers

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent; the description adds meaningful behavioral expectations: results are compact, directory provenance is kept separate from compatibility, and observed capabilities are kept separate from upstream claims. It does not discuss pagination or default behavior, but the output schema and annotations reduce the risk.

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 with no fluff: the first states the resource and search dimensions, the second sets result expectations and names the sibling for deeper evidence. Key differentiators are 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 100% parameter schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It also clarifies the follow-up path to inspect_mcp.

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 already describes every parameter (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat syntax. It adds useful conceptual grouping—claimed/observed capability, provenance vs compatibility—but does not materially expand individual parameter meaning beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('canonical MCP servers'), then lists search dimensions that distinguish it from generic search. It also differentiates from inspect_mcp by noting it returns compact directory results rather than full evidence.

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 explicitly routes to inspect_mcp when full evidence is needed, which clarifies the main alternative. It does not discuss relative use of search/fetch/feedback, but the primary decision is covered.

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