search_servers

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

The description describes a read-only search operation, but annotations include destructiveHint: true, creating a direct contradiction. The description does not disclose any potentially destructive 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?

The description is concise, uses an emoji for visual cue, and is structured with a clear workflow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains that results include server URLs and repository information for use with upstream_servers. However, it could be more specific about result fields.

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 has 100% coverage, but the description adds value by explaining that the tool features npm/PyPI package detection and that results are ready for upstream_servers, providing context beyond parameter names.

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 specifies the tool's function: discovering and searching MCP servers from registries with repository type detection. It distinguishes from siblings like list_registries and upstream_servers by explicitly linking 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?

Provides a clear workflow: call list_registries first, then use this tool. It also states results are ready for upstream_servers add command, giving context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives among siblings.

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