search_treeSearch Trood's public map of technologies, services, people, and companies to find matches for a project or technology query; no sign-in needed.
Search Trood's public map of technologies and services and the people and companies who work with them (tree.trood.com). No sign-in needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | What to look for, for example "booking engine" or "postgres" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — the data is public, lives at tree.trood.com, and requires no sign-in — but says nothing about result format, ranking, or any result limits.
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 short sentences with the scope stated first and the access condition second; nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
For a single-parameter, read-only, open-world search with no output schema, the description covers who/what is searched and the auth requirement. The remaining gap is what a result record looks like, which is minor but non-zero since there is no output schema to fall back on.
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% and the single 'query' parameter is documented in-schema with two concrete examples ("booking engine", "postgres"). The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline of 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?
The description names a specific verb (search) and a concrete resource (Trood's public map of technologies, services, people and companies) and anchors it to a real site, tree.trood.com. It is clearly distinct from sibling lookups like get_technology or get_company, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them, which keeps it at a 4 rather than 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?
Usage is only implied: the tool searches the public tree, so an agent can infer it is the free-text discovery entry point before drilling into get_technology or get_company. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for technology lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.