registry_search_servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the generic search action and the source ('GitHub repositories and registries') but fails to indicate side effects, data freshness, network usage, result ordering, or any limitations. This leaves the agent without crucial context for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary details or filler are present, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description omits any mention of return format or result behavior. It also does not reference the possibility of using registry_list_categories to discover valid category values. While the schema covers parameters, the lack of output schema and minimal description leaves some gaps, though it is minimally viable.

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%, with all three parameters (query, category, limit) described directly in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context for these parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool's function: 'Search for MCP servers from GitHub repositories and registries.' It uses the specific verb 'search' and identifies the resource ('MCP servers') and source context, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like registry_get_server_details and registry_list_categories.

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 implies usage through the verb 'search' but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives (e.g., 'for details, use registry_get_server_details') or exclusions, so it's only minimally guided.

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