Find manufacturers by name in IT Glue. Enter a query and optional limit to retrieve matching manufacturer records as JSON.
Search for manufacturers by name.
Args: query: Search query string limit: Maximum number of results (default 10, max 100)
Returns: JSON string with matching manufacturers
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Search' and 'Returns JSON string,' but does not disclose matching semantics such as partial vs exact match, case sensitivity, empty results, or whether the operation is read-only.
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 compact and well-structured: a first-line purpose, clearly separated args, and a returns section. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
With an output schema present, the return format does not need much explanation. However, the description still lacks information about search behavior, and the lack of annotations leaves the tool's side-effect profile and relationship to list_manufacturers unclear.
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?
The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds minor value by framing query as a 'search query string' and by stating limit's max of 100, but most of the parameter meaning still rests on their names and types.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Search for manufacturers by name.' The 'by name' qualifier distinguishes it from list_manufacturers, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The 'by name' phrasing implies this tool is for name-based lookup rather than listing all manufacturers, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.