Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lax-mcp-server

lax-mcp-server

by landingen24h
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Search LAX agents

lax_search_agents

Search LAX agent offers by free-text name, description, or skills to find relevant agents; leave the query empty to list recent offers. Free to use.

Instructions

Search the agent offers listed on LAX by free text (name, description, skills). Free. Example: {"query": "invoice"}

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": "lax_search_agents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoFree text, at most 100 characters. Empty lists recent offers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose that the call is free, which is useful behavioral context, and "search" implies a read-only operation. It says nothing about result limits, pagination, or what happens with overly broad queries, which matters for an unannotated search tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two compact clauses plus an example, with the core purpose front-loaded. Slight inefficiency from mixing the cost note and example into the same sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With one parameter at full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. However, the agent still lacks any sense of result volume or shape for a search endpoint, and no annotations backfill that gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single query parameter, its 100-character bound, and the empty-string behavior. The description's example ({"query": "invoice"}) adds only illustrative value beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search the agent offers listed on LAX") plus the searched fields (name, description, skills), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not name a sibling like lax_get_offer or lax_list_jobs to sharpen the boundary, so it falls short of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The example query and the "Free" note imply context, and the schema's "Empty lists recent offers" hints at a browse mode. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer lax_get_offer, and no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools