Search installed plugins and saved presets using query text and user tags, with optional filters to include built-in content or limit results to instruments.
Find installed plugins and saved presets. Basic GM/builtin candidates are excluded unless include_basic is explicit. Tags on saved presets are user-provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| include_basic | No | ||
| instrument_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two non-obvious behaviors: basic GM/builtin candidates are excluded unless include_basic is explicit, and tags on saved presets are user-provided. These go beyond the raw schema and help an agent interpret search results correctly.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying useful information: the search scope, a key default exclusion, and a data provenance note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks crucial invocation context: what fields query searches, exactly how instrument_only behaves, and what the returned results look like. The description gives a good start but is not complete enough for a 4-parameter search tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for four parameters. It only meaningfully explains include_basic and gives a hint that tags are user-provided. The query field semantics, instrument_only, and limit behavior remain largely unexplained.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Find installed plugins and saved presets.' This clearly distinguishes it from many sibling search tools like sound_search, effect_search, and content_search. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from catalog_reference_search, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.
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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it never names any sibling tools. The only usage-adjacent detail is the default exclusion of basic GM/builtin candidates, which is more of a behavioral note than a selection guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.