Algora MCP Server

search_bounties

Search open bounties by keyword across titles, descriptions, repo names, and org handles. Filter by tech stack and minimum amount to find relevant funding opportunities.

Instructions

Search open bounties by keyword. Searches titles, descriptions, repo names, and org handles. Useful for finding bounties in a specific domain (e.g., 'database', 'MCP', 'authentication').

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": {
      "keyword": "<keyword>"
    },
    "name": "search_bounties"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`keyword`	Yes	Search term to match against bounty content.
`tech`	No	Filter by tech stack (e.g., 'typescript', 'go').
`min_amount`	No	Minimum bounty USD amount.
`limit`	No	Max results. Default: 30.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool searches 'open bounties,' implying a read-only operation on a specific subset, which is adequate for a search tool. However, it does not discuss edge cases or idempotency.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: core action, search scope, and usage context. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a search tool with no output schema or nested objects, the description covers the essential behavior and use case. It could mention result ordering or empty results, but the given context is sufficient for most agents.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it merely restates the keyword concept.

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 clearly states it searches open bounties by keyword and specifies the fields searched (titles, descriptions, repo names, org handles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bounties or get_org_bounties, which filter by other criteria.

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 good context on when to use the tool ('useful for finding bounties in a specific domain') with concrete examples. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the purpose adequately guides the user.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server