Find Arduino libraries by keyword to add to sketches. Query the Library Manager for sensors, displays, or communication modules by name.
Search the Arduino Library Manager (e.g. 'Servo', 'DHT sensor', 'WiFi').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search term, e.g. 'DHT sensor' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only lookup, whether it queries a remote registry, how many results are returned, or whether results are paginated — all relevant for a search tool.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is slightly padded by parenthetical examples that restate the schema example, but there is no wasted prose.
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 one-parameter search with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the return shape (list of libraries? metadata?) and result limits. It should do more given that nothing else covers behavior.
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?
There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The examples in the description ('Servo', 'DHT sensor', 'WiFi') largely duplicate the schema's own example ('DHT sensor') and add no formatting or matching-behavior details.
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 ('Search') and resource ('the Arduino Library Manager'), which is enough to distinguish it from core-list or board-list. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from the closest sibling, core-search, so it is clear but not maximally sharp.
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: an agent can infer this is for discovering libraries by name, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs lib-list, core-search, or lib-deps, and no note about what to do with the results (e.g. feed into lib-install).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.