open_mcp_registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Search' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state whether this is safe or read-only, nor does it mention return format, pagination, or limitations. It is not misleading but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and any unnecessary details, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple search tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but does not describe the return value shape or any caveats. Given no annotations and no output schema, a bit more detail about results would be helpful, but it is not severely incomplete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters (limit, query, language). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the MCP Tool Registry for available servers and tools.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and a well-defined resource ('MCP Tool Registry'), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose. Since there are no sibling tools, differentiation is not required.

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 the tool is for locating MCP servers and tools, which is a clear context for use. With no sibling tools or alternative approaches mentioned, there is no need for exclusions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other search mechanisms, but the purpose is straightforward.

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