sa-ecosystem-node

Search the hub

search_hub

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search signed hub and guild listings by name, description, tags, or opted-in player story display name using a text query; read-only and excludes non-opted-in players.

Instructions

Search signed hub listings and guild listings by name, description, and tags, plus the display name of a player who opted in to a public story. A player who has not opted in is left out. The query is text, not an address. Nothing is uploaded. Read-only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_hub"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Text to match. At most 80 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that non-opted-in players are excluded and that nothing is uploaded; it does not cover result limits or pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is short and front-loads the core search scope before privacy and query caveats. It wastes little space, though 'Read-only' repeats the annotation and could be omitted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, privacy exclusions, and query type well. It is slightly incomplete because it does not mention result limits, ordering, or pagination behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the query parameter is already documented. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by naming the fields searched and clarifying that the query is text rather than an address.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: search signed hub and guild listings by name, description, and tags, plus opted-in player display names. This clearly distinguishes text search from the sibling list_listings browsing tool without requiring the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage through the search fields and the note that the query is text, not an address. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of list_listings or another sibling, so routing guidance is only implied.

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