Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
coinopai-mcp

coinopai-mcp

by forgemeshlabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

search_agent_automations

Search 819 agent automation prompts by keyword to find matching automations with details on title, description, complexity, and services. Costs $0.01 USDC.

Instructions

Search 819 agent automation prompts by keyword. Returns matching automations with title, description, complexity and services. Costs $0.01 USDC.

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_agent_automations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results to return (default 20, max 50)
queryYesSearch keyword (e.g. 'slack', 'notion', 'github')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.6

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds value by disclosing the monetary cost ($0.01 USDC) and return fields. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only and if there are any side effects or rate limits.

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 wasted words: first states purpose, second lists returns and cost. Front-loaded with the key action and scope.

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?

Covers purpose, return fields, and cost. Lacks details on pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, ordering, or error handling, but sufficient for a straightforward search tool.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. Description adds minimal extra context (e.g., 'keyword' example) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 it searches automation prompts by keyword and specifies return fields (title, description, complexity, services). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_agent_automation (single automation) and list_automation_categories (categories).

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?

Usage is implied for keyword-based searches, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like get_agent_automation for a specific automation, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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