Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
web3-agents-mcp

web3-agents-mcp

by hanjoonchoe
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

search_agents

Search ERC-8004 agents by name, capability, or description to discover on-chain AI agents from the registry.

Instructions

Searches for ERC-8004 agents by name/capability/description. MVP stub: no local index backend ships yet, so this always returns INDEX_UNAVAILABLE (input validation still runs first).

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_agents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain to query, by name (see list_chains). Defaults to base.
limitNo
queryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's stub status and the guaranteed INDEX_UNAVAILABLE response. It also notes that input validation still runs, which is a valuable behavioral detail beyond what the schema reveals.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second delivers the critical caveat. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the search intent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that the tool always returns a fixed error code, the description fully captures what an agent needs to know: the search capability, the stub status, and the guarantee of INDEX_UNAVAILABLE. No output schema is needed because the outcome is fully specified.

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?

The description adds meaning to the query parameter by specifying it searches name/capability/description, which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain the chain or limit parameters beyond what the schema already provides, and schema coverage is only 33%.

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 states a specific action ('Searches for ERC-8004 agents') and identifies search criteria ('by name/capability/description'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like resolve_agent by indicating a broad search rather than targeted resolution.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context that this is an MVP stub and will always return INDEX_UNAVAILABLE, telling the agent not to rely on it for actual results. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, which prevents a 5, but the warning is unambiguous.

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