Search the DigiKey catalog for electronic part candidates using standard pricing, with filters for in-stock items and marketplace exclusion to support component discovery.
Search DigiKey for discovery candidates using standard pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| in_stock | No | ||
| exclude_marketplace | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lowered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't explain the effect of the in_stock and exclude_marketplace defaults, pagination/limit behavior, or the 'standard pricing' distinction. For an external-API search tool, this leaves meaningful behavior undisclosed.
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?
A single short sentence with no padding, but that brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being earned 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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but with 0% parameter coverage, unexplained defaults, and no usage guidance, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently alongside ten siblings.
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 0% and none of the four parameters (query, limit, in_stock, exclude_marketplace) are explained in the description. The one added phrase, 'standard pricing', corresponds to no parameter, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap at all.
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 verb (Search) and resource (DigiKey parts), but the qualifier 'discovery candidates using standard pricing' is vague jargon that doesn't tell the agent what makes this different from digikey_get_part, digikey_compare_parts, or digikey_find_alternates. The purpose is inferable but not sharply defined.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any sibling tool as an alternative. The agent must guess whether this is the entry point for part lookup versus the get/compare/alternates tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.