Search the pinned public RunningHub model catalog by query, output type, media input, and price to discover available models. Returns catalog results only; it does not check account availability.
Search the pinned public RunningHub model catalog. This is discovery only, not account availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| max_price | No | ||
| output_type | No | ||
| has_media_input | No |
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 behavioral burden, and it only discloses that the catalog is 'pinned' and public. It says nothing about pagination, result ordering, auth requirements, rate limits, or the shape/cost of 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 sentences, front-loaded and free of filler, which is structurally sound. But for a five-parameter search tool the brevity shades into under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters leave major gaps for an agent to operate this tool. The description does not compensate for the missing structured documentation.
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?
Five parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. query, max_price, output_type, has_media_input, and limit are entirely undocumented, so an agent must guess at semantics and units (e.g., what max_price is denominated in).
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 pinned public RunningHub model catalog.' An agent can tell it operates on models rather than workflows or jobs, distinguishing it from rh_search_workflows and the workflow/job siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer in ambiguous cases.
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 clause 'This is discovery only, not account availability' hints at the intended usage context, implying it should be used to explore the catalog rather than to check what the user can actually run. However, it names no alternative tool for account-availability queries and gives no trigger conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.