Search installed tools by literal keywords, optionally filtering by source or category, with bounded pagination to control result size.
Find installed tools by literal words, with optional source/category filters and bounded pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| category | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds only that pagination is bounded and filters are optional; it does not say what matching semantics are (substring, token, AND/OR) or what ranking applies to results.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is arguably over-compressed for a five-parameter search tool, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain results, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is matching semantics and filter value domains, which matters given 0% schema coverage on five parameters.
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 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden, and it does name two of the optional filters (source, category) plus bounded pagination. It says nothing about query syntax, allowed source/category values, or how limit and offset interact, leaving real gaps.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Find installed tools') and adds a meaningful qualifier ('by literal words'), which hints at keyword matching. It never names a sibling, so an agent must infer the contrast with toolbox_inventory or toolbox_research rather than being told it.
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?
'By literal words' implies the tool is for exact-term lookup rather than exploration, which is a usable hint. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to the sibling tools that plainly overlap (inventory, describe, research).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.