search_docsSearch /llms.txt and agent guidance for API, CLI, MCP and safety instructions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| code | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "const": "OK",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "const": true,
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "maximum": 599,
+ "minimum": 100,
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok",
+ "code",
+ "status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, etc. The description adds context on what specific documents are searched, which is helpful and does not contradict annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.
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 low complexity (one parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects of what is searched and the scope, though it does not specify return format.
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 the description does not explain the 'query' parameter's format, requiredness, or expected input, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 specifies a clear verb ('Search'), resource ('/llms.txt and agent guidance'), and scope ('API, CLI, MCP and safety instructions'), distinguishing it from sibling search tools.
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 implies usage when searching API, CLI, MCP, or safety docs, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or recommend alternatives among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among search variants (search, search_resources, search_harnesses) and between fetch and resource_detail, which could cause confusion.
Naming mostly follows a verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies such as 'publish_markdown_to_harness' being longer and 'resource_use_instructions' having a different structure.
12 tools is appropriate for a registry server, covering search, fetch, publish, and pull operations without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers core operations (search, fetch, publish, pull) but lacks update and delete functionalities, which are minor gaps for a registry.