Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentPlaybooks

AgentPlaybooks

by matebenyovszky
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Find tools

find_tools
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search account and playbook operations by keyword, returning input schemas; supply a playbook ID to also search connected servers.

Instructions

Find account and playbook operations by keyword and return their input schemas. No playbook_id is needed for the account catalog. Supply playbook_id to also search connected servers. Call returned tools directly; omitted tools remain callable in core/full. Pinned domain views search only their allowed operations.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "find_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum matches to return (default 10, max 25)
queryYesKeywords to match against tool names and descriptions, e.g. 'sql tables' or 'archive memory'
playbook_idNoUUID or GUID of the target playbook

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
matchesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.4
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "playbook_id",
-  "query"
-]New value: +[
+  "query"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish a safe, idempotent read, so the description spends its words well on non-obvious behavior: results are tool definitions with schemas, the search surface widens with playbook_id, and pinned domain views restrict the result set. Terms like 'core/full' and 'Pinned domain views' are used without definition, which limits how much an agent can act on them.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, each carrying distinct information with no filler. Slight density cost from unexplained internal jargon ('core/full', 'Pinned domain views') that an outside agent cannot parse.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, and it instead covers the risky parts: search scope, when playbook_id matters, and whether omitted tools are callable. That is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the semantic effect of playbook_id (it expands the search scope to connected servers) rather than restating the schema's 'UUID or GUID of the target playbook'. The limit cap is left to the schema.

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+resource: find operations by keyword and return their input schemas, which is a distinct capability from every sibling (get_playbook, list_skills, list_mcp_servers are conventional lookups). It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it lands just shy of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear conditional: omit playbook_id for the account catalog, supply it to also search connected servers. It also warns that omitted tools remain callable in core/full, discouraging the false inference that absence means unavailability. No explicit when-not-to-use-this-tool statement keeps it at 4.

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