Skip to main content
Glama

emdly

by com.emdly

Search Skills

search_skills

Use this FIRST, before any non-trivial task, to find a ready-made skill in the emdly catalog (reviewed Markdown playbooks for AI agents). Query with 1–3 short keywords naming the kind of work (e.g. "code review", "jira", "seo audit"); words are matched independently, so a sentence works too. If the result is empty, retry with a single noun, or send an empty query for the top skills. Returns ranked skills with their owner/name id, category, description and install command.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes1–3 short keywords for the kind of work (each word is matched on its own against name, description, tags, category and author). Empty = the most popular skills.
categoryNoOptional category slug or name, e.g. code-review.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"Free-text search over name and description."New value: +"1–3 short keywords for the kind of work (each word is matched on its own against name, description, tags, category and author). Empty = the most popular skills."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does reveal meaningful semantics: words are matched independently, empty queries return top skills, and results are ranked with specific fields. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, but for a search tool this is not a critical omission.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, each carrying a distinct purpose: guidance, query tips, empty-result fallback, and return shape. No filler or repetition, and the most actionable instruction is placed first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-param search tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent when to invoke it, how to query, how to recover from empty results, and what the response will contain, which is everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3; the description adds value beyond the schema by giving example keywords, explaining independent matching, and advising empty-query fallback behavior. It doesn't discuss the optional category filter, but the schema already covers it well.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches for ready-made skills in the emdly catalog, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_skill or brain_search, so it lacks the full sibling differentiation required for a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Strong situational guidance is provided ('Use this FIRST, before any non-trivial task') along with concrete query and retry instructions. It lacks explicit exclusions, such as 'When you already have a skill ID, use get_skill,' so it stops short of a 5.

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

All emdly toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: brain_get/brain_list/brain_search/brain_write cover memory operations, while get_collection/get_skill/install_skill/search_skills/submit_skill handle skill discovery, retrieval, installation, and submission. No two tools overlap in function; even the search vs get pairs are distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

The brain_* prefix provides a consistent pattern for memory tools, but the skill tools use mixed conventions: get_collection, get_skill, install_skill, search_skills, submit_skill — no shared prefix or uniform verb_noun structure. This inconsistency is noticeable but each name is still readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools covering two domains (memory and skills), the count is well-scoped. Each tool earns its place, and the number is within the ideal range for a focused server.

Completeness4/5

The brain tools cover list, get, search, and write, but lack an explicit delete operation. The skill tools cover search, get, install, submit, and collection listing, but no uninstall. These are minor gaps that agents can work around; the core workflows are complete.

Resources