Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-registry-finder

mcp-registry-finder

by bharat3645
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Search the MCP Registry

search_registry

Find MCP servers in the official registry by matching a substring in the server name. Get version, status, and description for each result.

Instructions

Search the official Model Context Protocol registry (registry.modelcontextprotocol.io) for published MCP servers by substring match on name. Returns matching servers with version, status, and description.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_registry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results to return (1-50).
queryYesSubstring to match against server names, e.g. 'filesystem' or 'github'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it searches and returns servers, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or mention any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple search, but could be more explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and target, followed by what is returned. No extraneous information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the input and output fields. However, it does not cover potential edge cases or result ordering, which could be helpful. Still, it adequately equips an agent for correct use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema. It mentions 'substring match on name' which slightly reinforces the query parameter's role, but the schema already describes both parameters thoroughly. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: search the official MCP registry for servers by substring match on name. It specifies the action (search), the resource (registry), and the result fields (version, status, description). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'format_install_command' or 'list_recent_servers'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It implies usage when looking for servers by name substring, but lacks 'when not to use' or references to sibling tools. The context is clear but exclusion guidance is missing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools