Find skills and MCP servers by query to identify agent dependencies and discover what to chain next.
Search skills and MCP servers
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"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about matching behavior, ranking, result limits, pagination, or what an empty query returns. The only fact conveyed is the resource domain, which is already implied by the name.
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 definition is a single short phrase with no waste, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight editing. It is front-loaded but carries almost no information beyond the name.
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 low-complexity, one-parameter, no-output-schema tool the bar is modest, yet the description omits query semantics and any notion of what comes back, which are exactly what an agent needs to call it correctly. It is not adequate even at this complexity level.
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 0% and the single parameter `q` has no description in the schema, so the tool description must compensate — but it never mentions the parameter, its syntax, substring vs token matching, or that it is optional. The gap is partially mitigated by there being only one, conventionally named parameter.
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 pairs a verb ("Search") with two resource categories ("skills and MCP servers"), which separates it from siblings like list_watches or versions. It is still vague about what a skill/MCP record is and what gets matched, so an agent cannot fully predict results from the text alone.
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 when-to-use guidance is given at all: nothing says whether to prefer search over weave_reference or weave_ask for looking things up, and there are no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.