Find open source repositories for a specific task, ranked by match and OG score, with filters for category, interface, and result limit.
Find agent-ready open source repos for a task. Returns repos ranked by match, then OG score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | What you need, e.g. "decompile an APK" or "security audit" | |
| category | No | ||
| interface | No | Only repos an agent can use this way |
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 burden. It usefully discloses the ranking rule ('ranked by match, then OG score'), which is real behavioral context, but 'OG score' is undefined jargon and there is no statement about result caps, empty-result behavior, or the fact that all parameters are optional (so an empty call presumably returns unfiltered results).
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return behavior, with no filler. The only cost is that the second sentence introduces an unexplained scoring term rather than earning extra clarity.
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?
No annotations and no output schema mean the description must explain behavior and returns, but it only gives a one-line ranking hint. It omits empty-query behavior, result limits/pagination, and what the returned ranking metric means — significant gaps 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 coverage is 50% — `query` and `interface` are documented in-schema, while `limit` and `category` are not. The description adds nothing about parameters, notably not clarifying whether `query` is effectively required despite zero required parameters, nor how filters interact with ranking.
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 and resource ('Find agent-ready open source repos for a task') and adds a scope qualifier ('agent-ready'). It implicitly separates itself from `trending` by framing results as task/query-driven, but never names the sibling explicitly.
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 `trending` or `get_repo`, and no mention of how `query`, `category`, and `interface` combine or which takes precedence. The only hint is the phrase 'for a task', which leaves selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.