Find registered AI agents by category, endorsements, reputation, or name. Filter and sort up to 100 results to quickly locate trusted agents in the registry.
Browse registered agents with optional category filter and sorting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter by category | |
| sort | No | Sort order | endorsements |
| limit | No | Max results (1-100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.2Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Max results"New value: +"Max results (1-100)"Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description is minimal and does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it paginates, or how results are ordered. 'Browse' implies non-mutating behavior, but without explicit mention of permissions, side effects, or return format, the description does not sufficiently disclose behavioral traits.
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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundancy and earns its place with all essential information.
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?
The tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema. The description is adequate for a simple list/browse operation, but it does not mention what the return value looks like (e.g., a list of agent objects) or any pagination behavior. Given the sibling tools and lack of output schema, the description could be slightly more descriptive to fully contextualize the tool.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a general mention of 'optional category filter and sorting,' which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already specifies.
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 function: browsing registered agents with optional category filtering and sorting. The verb 'browse' plus the resource 'registered agents' makes the purpose unambiguous, and the mention of filtering and sorting distinguishes it from simple get or search operations.
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 indicates when to use the tool (to browse/list agents) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like 'search_agents' or 'get_agent'. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.