Skip to main content
Glama
Carnegie Mellon Web Kilt MCP Server

Carnegie Mellon Web Kilt MCP Server

Official
by cmu-web

Search Components

search_components
Read-only

Search a kit's components by keyword or label and get labels and documentation links; omit the query to list every component.

Instructions

Lists the kit's components (and the template's, labeled Template) that match a search, with their labels and docs links. With no query, lists them all.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_components"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNoOnly components with this label.
queryNoWords to look for, like "upload file" or "tabs".
versionNoA kit release, like "0.4.0". Defaults to the latest.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add non-obvious context: template components are included and labeled "Template", and an empty query returns everything. It says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination limits 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no filler; the scope and return contents come first and the empty-query behavior is front-loaded as the trailing rule. Every clause carries 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?

A simple, fully optional-parameter read tool whose annotations and schema already cover safety and inputs; the description additionally explains what a result contains, so no output schema is needed. Only search-result limits and ordering are left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions and an enum for label, so the description need not restate them. It does not add meaning beyond the schema for query, label, or version, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists the kit's components"), plus scope (kit vs. template) and result contents (labels, docs links). It implicitly contrasts with the singular get_component sibling through "match a search" / "lists them all", but never names that alternative.

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 clause "With no query, lists them all" gives one concrete usage pattern and a useful behavioral cue for the empty-query case. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_component guidance or mention of the version/label filters as narrowing strategies.

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