Find up to 5 tools for a goal described in plain words, ordered by trust, and see required and optional inputs.
Find tools for a goal, in plain words. Returns up to 5 tools, most trusted first, with their inputs (a trailing ? means optional).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose real behavioral detail: a cap of 5 results, trust-based ordering, and input notation (trailing ? = optional). It omits other useful traits — whether the match is semantic or keyword-based, behavior on zero results, and any freshness/side-effect notes — so it is informative but incomplete.
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 sentences, no waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return-format detail following. Every clause adds information the schema does not carry.
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, so the description correctly steps in to explain the return shape (up to 5 tools, trust-ordered, with inputs). For a single-parameter discovery tool this is nearly sufficient; only edge cases like no matches or how to request more results are 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?
One parameter with 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does: the goal is described as free-form "plain words", clarifying the expected input style beyond the bare `string` type. It does not give length limits or example queries, so it stops short of full coverage.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Find tools") plus the input modality (a goal in plain words), so an agent immediately knows this is a discovery/search tool. It is not explicitly contrasted with siblings like describe or run, but the purpose is unambiguous against the rest of the list.
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?
Implied usage is clear — call this when you have a goal and need to locate a tool — and "in plain words" hints at how to phrase the request. However there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how this relates to describe/run, and no note on what to do when no tool matches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.