PLUR

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

plur_packs_discover

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover curated engram packs from the registry. Filter by tags, category, or search query to find expertise packs to install.

Instructions

Browse available engram packs from the registry — discover curated expertise packs to install

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "plur_packs_discover"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Filter by tags
`query`	No	Search query to filter packs by name or description
`category`	No	Filter by category (e.g., devops, trading, writing)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.14.0Jul 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already convey safety and non-destructiveness. The description adds 'browse' and 'discover', which align with read-only behavior but do not disclose additional traits like result limits, pagination, or data freshness. Since annotations carry the transparency burden, a score of 3 reflects minimal added value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with clear verb 'Browse' upfront. No filler words. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple browse/search tool with optional parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks output format details (e.g., list of pack names and metadata), but the read-only and open-world hints partially compensate. A small gap exists, so 4 is appropriate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with all three parameters described. The description adds no parameter-specific info; it remains generic. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool browses available packs from the registry, with verbs 'browse' and 'discover'. It implies discovery of new packs, distinguishing from sibling tools like plur_packs_list (likely listing installed packs) and plur_packs_install. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings, so a 4 is appropriate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or refer to sibling tools. The agent receives no help in choosing between plur_packs_discover and similar tools like plur_packs_list or plur_packs_preview.

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