Search ForgeMCP capabilities by intent to find the right tool for your task. Returns matching tool names with one-line descriptions.
Search ForgeMCP capabilities by intent. Returns matching tool names with one-line descriptions. Example: forge_discover('find rate limiter code') → genius.hunt, genius.find_best
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | What you want to do — natural language |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the return shape (matching tool names with one-line descriptions), but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or failure behavior. It is a read-only discovery operation by nature, so the safety profile is low-risk, but the disclosure is partial.
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 tight sentences plus a one-line example, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every element contributes: purpose, return shape, and a concrete usage instance.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining the return format (names plus one-line descriptions). Given the tool's simplicity (one required string parameter), this is close to complete; only result-volume or ranking behavior is unaddressed.
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% for the single query parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The inline example ('find rate limiter code') illustrates the expected natural-language phrasing, adding mild value beyond the schema's own 'natural language' note.
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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (ForgeMCP capabilities) and further clarifies the intent-based search model, which is distinct from the lookup behavior of a sibling like forge_describe. It clearly conveys what the tool returns, but does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, so it falls just short of full differentiation.
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 phrase 'search ... by intent' plus a concrete natural-language example gives implied usage guidance for when this tool applies. However, there is no explicit 'when to use this vs forge_describe' statement or any exclusion, leaving the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.