search_mcp_servers

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

No annotations are provided, but the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function. It fails to mention aspects like authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return value details, but the description lacks any additional behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it could include more context (e.g., mentioning the output type) without becoming verbose. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 tool has three parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain search behavior (e.g., fuzzy vs exact), pagination, or result structure. The output schema covers return values, but the description should at least mention that results are returned.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already defines all parameters. The description adds no new semantic value beyond implying the query parameter is used for name/keyword search. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Search'), resource ('MCP servers'), and method ('by name or keywords'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mcp_servers, get_mcp_server, and get_server_versions, which serve different purposes.

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?

The description implies usage for searching, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. No alternative tools are mentioned, and no conditions (e.g., when list_mcp_servers might be more appropriate) are given.

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