search_mcp_servers

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return format (names, descriptions, links, popularity) which gives a reasonable behavioral overview. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or discuss side effects, rate limits, or authentication.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action, data source, scale, target clients, and return fields. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a complete picture of the tool's functionality and output. It does not explain pagination or ordering, but these are minor omissions.

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 coverage is 50%: only 'query' has a description. The tool description adds context about the directory and what is returned but does not explain the 'limit' parameter. This partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool searches a directory of MCP servers, specifying the directory name, count, and intended clients. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools 'search_plugins' and 'search_skills', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without mentioning exclusions or when not to use it.

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