search_servers

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

The description states the tool is for searching and discovering, implying read-only behavior. However, annotations include both readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=true, which contradict each other and the description. This contradiction severely undermines behavioral transparency, as it's unclear whether the tool is safe or destructive.

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 moderately concise, with a clear structure: a purpose statement followed by a workflow. It could be more concise (e.g., removing the emoji or slightly redundant phrasing), but overall it is focused and well-organized.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains that results include server URLs and repository information ready for use with upstream_servers. This is sufficient for the agent to understand the return value. However, it lacks details on pagination or limits, which are partially covered by the limit parameter description.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context about workflow but does not provide additional meaning for the parameters beyond what the schema offers. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to discover and search for MCP servers from known registries. It specifies the verb ('discover', 'search'), resource ('MCP servers'), and the outcome (finding servers to add as upstreams). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_registries and upstream_servers by describing the workflow.

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 description provides explicit workflow guidance: '1) Call 'list_registries' first to see available registries, 2) Use this tool with a registry ID to search servers.' This tells the agent when and how to use the tool, including prerequisites and follow-up actions with upstream_servers.

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