search_serversRank configured downstream MCP servers by relevance to a domain-level query, so you can focus capability discovery before drilling into specific tools.
Rank configured downstream MCP servers against a domain-level query. Useful before drilling into capability search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Domain-level query such as 'project management' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (ranking servers, not modifying them) and the scoping to configured downstream MCP servers. It doesn't cover details like ranking criteria, read-only guarantees, or response shape, but the disclosed behavior is accurate and non-contradictory.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage context is a single additional clause that earns its place.
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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is ranked, the query type, and when to use it. The main gap is the absence of any mention of the return value, which the absence of an output schema makes slightly more relevant.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the query parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces 'domain-level query' but adds no parameter format or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Rank'), a specific resource ('configured downstream MCP servers'), and a clear scope ('domain-level query'). It also positions itself against the capability-search siblings, so an agent can distinguish it from search_capabilities without opening the schema.
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?
Description gives explicit temporal guidance: use this before drilling into capability search. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative or list when-not-to-use cases, but the context is clear enough given sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.