Search MCP servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the default no-filter enumeration behavior and the returned fields (name, slug, category, status, link), which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of noting pagination or ordering behavior.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then default behavior, then sibling routing. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 six-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the two things structured data does not: default no-filter behavior and the shape of the result set. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, with every parameter including enums documented in-schema (e.g. maintained/stale, local/remote), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds the general fact that filters are optional, which is already implied by zero required parameters.

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 ('Search the Plugolis directory of MCP servers') and scopes the domain clearly against the sibling search_fixes. It also names get_server as the follow-up tool, so an agent can place it in the tool graph without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says all filters are optional and that a no-argument call lists every server, which removes the biggest ambiguity for a 0-required-param tool. It also routes the agent elsewhere ('Use get_server for install details'), giving a concrete when-to-use-this-vs-sibling condition.

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