Search MCP servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the result field list including the freshness detail ('when that score was last checked'), which helps set expectations. However, it says nothing about result ordering, relevance ranking, or total-count/total-page behavior that the cursor parameter implies.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence is a long field enumeration that partly duplicates the output schema, which costs a little, but nothing is padded or vague.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value list in the description is partly redundant and return shape needs no further explanation. With 8 optional filters and pagination, the definition is adequate but leaves result ordering and pagination completion behavior undocumented.

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 8 parameters explicitly documented, including limits, cursor semantics, and example values for category, language, and transport. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Pryno MCP directory.' An agent immediately knows this is a filtered search over a server catalog. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like get_mcp_server or directory_stats, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone that get_mcp_server is for fetching a single known server and list_categories for category enumeration. The description provides no routing signal.

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