find_mcp_servers

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

Despite no annotations, the description details behavioral traits: semantic similarity search, returned trust signals, capability flags, hosted endpoint, and important warnings about 'not ground truth' and verifying via source_urls. This goes beyond typical scope.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. While informative, it could be more concise by grouping related details; nevertheless, no unnecessary sentences.

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?

Considering the complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description explains key return fields and provides usage warnings. However, it omits detailed explanations for some parameters, leaving the schema to carry burden, which is 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only explains exclude_capability_flags and require_hosted. Parameters like category, limit, min_security_score, min_runtime_score are not described, leaving gaps for an agent to understand their semantics.

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 'Search for MCP servers by use case or keyword using semantic similarity,' specifying verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_top_integrations or list_ecosystems which focus on different entities.

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 explicit guidance on using exclude_capability_flags and require_hosted filters, and states that quarantined/archived servers are excluded. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify scenarios where this tool should be avoided.

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