Search a metadata catalog to find known plugin parameters and programs. Use results to reference observed behavior without confirming installation on the server.
Search the source-controlled observed metadata catalog. Results describe known plugin parameters/programs but do not prove installation on this server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that results do not prove installation, which is a key behavioral limitation. It also describes the catalog as 'source-controlled' and 'observed', indicating data provenance and potential staleness. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the verb 'Search' implies it. The caveat adds significant behavioral context beyond the tool name.
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 two short, focused sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource; the second adds a concise caveat. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly efficient.
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?
The description gives the purpose and a key caveat, but it lacks parameter semantics and does not describe the return format. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more detail about what a result looks like and how the parameters affect the search. For a simple search tool with two optional parameters, it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters 'query' or 'limit'. The tool name and the word 'Search' imply that query is the search term, but the description does not explicitly map parameters to their meaning or explain how 'limit' controls results. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.
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 action (Search) and the specific resource (source-controlled observed metadata catalog). It further specifies the subject matter (plugin parameters/programs) and includes a critical caveat about installation proof, which distinguishes it from other catalog search tools. This is a specific verb+resource with added nuance.
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 clear context that results describe metadata and do not prove installation, implying the tool is for reference lookups rather than installation checks. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., plugin_verify) or provide explicit when/when-not guidance, so it stops short of a full exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.