ragmap

Find RAG MCP servers

rag_find_servers

Search and filter RAG-capable MCP servers by query, categories, score, transport, and other criteria to find the right retrieval server for your task.

Instructions

Search/filter RAG-related MCP servers from the RAGMap subregistry.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "rag_find_servers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No
`categories`	No
`minScore`	No
`transport`	No
`registryType`	No
`hasRemote`	No
`reachable`	No
`reachableMaxAgeHours`	No
`citations`	No
`localOnly`	No
`serverKind`	No
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0May 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / reachableMaxAgeHours

Added value: +{
+  "maximum": 8760,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / serverKind

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "retriever",
+    "evaluator",
+    "indexer",
+    "router",
+    "other"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.1.3Feb 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'search/filter' and omits details like default behavior, ordering, or pagination, making it insufficient for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, but given the tool's complexity (12 parameters), it may be too terse. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary detail.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The description fails to provide essential context for a tool with many optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The agent lacks information on parameter relationships or result structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the 12 parameters. The agent cannot infer how to use filters like 'query', 'categories', or 'minScore' from the description alone.

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 the action (Search/filter) and the resource (RAG-related MCP servers from the RAGMap subregistry), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like rag_top_servers and rag_get_server.

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 alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without enough context to decide.

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

Deploy Server