Terraform Registry MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the search scope ('public registry'), discloses pagination behavior with defaults and limits (offset: 0, limit: 20, max: 50), and describes the return format. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers core operational aspects well.

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?

Perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, followed by organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The two-sentence format with bullet-point-like clarity makes it highly scannable and 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, but with output schema present, the description provides complete context: clear purpose, detailed parameter explanations, behavioral constraints, and return format description. The output schema existence means return values needn't be fully detailed, making this description comprehensive enough.

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 must compensate fully. It provides detailed parameter semantics beyond schema titles: explains query accepts 'module name or keywords', gives provider examples ('aws', 'azurerm', 'google'), clarifies offset/limit defaults and constraints. This adds substantial meaning not in the schema.

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 specific action ('Search for Terraform modules') and resource ('in the public registry'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_providers or search_provider_docs that target different resources. It uses precise terminology that aligns with the tool's domain.

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 usage for searching Terraform modules, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_module_details or list_module_versions. It mentions the public registry scope, which helps narrow context, but lacks sibling differentiation or exclusion criteria.

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