Find RAG MCP servers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only search operation but doesn't disclose details like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what 'RAGMap subregistry' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Search/filter') and resource. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it appropriately concise for a tool name that already hints at its function.

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?

For a complex tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the filtering logic, return format, error conditions, or how parameters interact. The lack of sibling differentiation and parameter semantics further reduces completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'Search/filter' which hints at parameters like 'query' or 'categories', but doesn't explain any of the 10 parameters' meanings, purposes, or relationships. This is inadequate given the high parameter count and lack of schema documentation.

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 the verb ('Search/filter') and resource ('RAG-related MCP servers from the RAGMap subregistry'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'rag_get_server' or 'rag_list_categories', which would be needed for 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.

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 alternatives like 'rag_get_server' (which might retrieve a single server) or 'rag_list_categories' (which might list categories without filtering). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts.

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