Search universities worldwide by name or country to find matching institutions. Use partial name matches and limit results for targeted academic research.
Search world universities by name and/or country.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | University name to search (partial match). | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 25). | |
| country | No | Country name (e.g. 'Australia', 'United States'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on result ordering, coverage of the dataset, or pagination — leaving it at minimum viable given the annotation support.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler. Slightly terse relative to what it could convey, but nothing is wasted.
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?
It is a simple zero-required-param search with full schema docs and annotations covering safety, so little is required. However, with no output schema the description gives no hint of what a result contains (name, country, identifiers) or how results are ranked/limited beyond the default.
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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter (name partial match, country example, limit default 25) fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the two filter fields and adds no syntax or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('world universities') plus the two filter dimensions (name, country). An agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves; there are no university siblings to differentiate from, so 4 rather than 5.
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?
'by name and/or country' implies the filterable modes and that all filters are optional, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of adjacent tools (e.g. country/geo lookups) an agent might pick instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.