Search the CuratedMCP catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature (implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on no results. The description only states 'Search', which is minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 very concise with only two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence earns its place. No redundant or verbose language.

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?

Given the low complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema) and the presence of siblings, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and usage context. However, it could be improved by briefly noting the return format or behavior (e.g., 'returns a list of matching servers with basic info').

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by stating 'by keyword and/or category', which maps to query and category parameters, but does not add deeper meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as the 'CuratedMCP catalog of human-reviewed, risk-classified MCP servers'. It also distinguishes from siblings by stating a use case ('before installing an unfamiliar MCP server') which hints at differentiation from check_mcp_server_verified and get_mcp_server_details.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this before installing an unfamiliar MCP server to see if a vetted alternative already exists.' It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives for when not to use it, which would push it to a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.