Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub Tools

MCP Hub Tools

by hekmon8
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

search_mcp_hub

Search for Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers using specific keywords to retrieve relevant information from the MCP Hub database.

Instructions

Search for MCPs on the MCP Hub

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": {
      "keywords": "<keywords>"
    },
    "name": "search_mcp_hub"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordsYesKeywords to search for MCPs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's function but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information on search scope (e.g., partial/full matches), result format, pagination, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a search operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of MCPs with details), how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like sorting or filtering. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's full context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'keywords' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as search syntax examples or keyword formatting rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Search for MCPs') and the target resource ('on the MCP Hub'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, with no sibling tools mentioned, there's no opportunity to differentiate from alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other methods or tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for searching, or any limitations on its applicability, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

Related Tools