magg_search_servers

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

With no annotations provided, the description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or how 'online' search works. The description does not reveal what happens during the search or any constraints.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified. Being concise is good, but the lack of useful details means it does not earn its place fully. A slightly longer description with more context would be better.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what 'MCP servers online' means, how results are returned, or any context about the search source. The output schema helps but the description should fill in the 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema; for example, it does not clarify the format of the query or the scope of the limit. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search for MCP servers online' clearly states the tool's action (search) and resource (MCP servers), but fails to distinguish it from sibling 'magg_list_servers', which likely lists local servers. The word 'online' hints at external search but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'magg_list_servers' or under what conditions it is appropriate. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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