Search Hugging Face Hub collections by query, owner, or item filters to find relevant collections and limit the number of results returned.
Search for collections on Hugging Face Hub
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | No | Filter by item (e.g., 'models/teknium/OpenHermes-2.5-Mistral-7B') | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| owner | No | Filter by owner | |
| query | No | Search term for titles and descriptions |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving key traits unspecified.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized. However, it could be more front-loaded by immediately clarifying the tool's scope relative to siblings to improve structure.
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?
Given the complexity of a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what collections are, how results are structured, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.
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%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., combining query with owner) or usage examples, meeting the baseline for high 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?
The description states the action ('Search for') and resource ('collections on Hugging Face Hub'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what collections are (e.g., curated sets of models/datasets) or differentiate from siblings like search-datasets or search-models, leaving the scope ambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like search-datasets and search-models, it's unclear if this is for broader searches or specific to collection types, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.