search_serversSearch MCP registry servers by keywords in names, titles, descriptions, or hosts, then sort results by exact Claude token cost to compare context costs.
Finds registry servers by words in their name, title, description or host, sorted by exact Claude token cost by default. Twenty per page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| status | 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 usefully discloses the default sort (exact Claude token cost) and pagination size (twenty per page), but says nothing about read-only safety, rate limits, or what a result entry contains. Partial disclosure for an unannotated tool.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and search scope, followed by the default ordering and page size. No filler.
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?
For a 4-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers query behavior, default sort, and pagination, but omits the meaning of the status filter values and any hint at the shape of returned results. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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% with 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the query semantics (matching words in name/title/description/host), the default sort (Claude token cost), and the page size (twenty), but leaves the status enum values and the page parameter's meaning completely undefined.
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 (finds) and resource (registry servers) and even names the fields searched (name, title, description, host), so the agent knows this is a keyword search over server metadata. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling lookup_server, which is the only gap.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus lookup_server or measure_server, and no mention of when to apply the status filter or non-default sorts. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.