Search indexed remote MCP servers by intended task, capability, product, category, endpoint metadata, or associated tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| category | No | ||
| transport | No | ||
| online_only | No | ||
| verified_only | No | ||
| authentication | No | ||
| read_only_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, or result set size. Only 'limit' parameter implies pagination but is not explained.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no unnecessary words. However, it could be structured as a list of searchable facets for clarity.
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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain return values, pagination, or how the various filters interact.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions only a subset of search dimensions (e.g., category, capability) but omits details on 'limit', 'transport', 'online_only', 'verified_only', 'authentication', and 'read_only_only' parameters.
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 verb 'Search' and resource 'indexed remote MCP servers', listing multiple search dimensions (task, capability, etc.). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_mcp_tools' which searches 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_mcp_server' or 'search_mcp_tools'. The description does not mention exclusions or context-specific conditions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: checking endpoints, comparing servers, retrieving install instructions, getting endpoint/server/tool details, or searching. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_mcp_endpoint, search_mcp_tools). The naming is uniform and predictable.
With 8 tools, the set covers all necessary query, retrieval, and search functions for an MCP registry without excess. The count feels well-scoped.
The tools cover all major read operations for the registry domain, including retrieval of endpoints, servers, tools, and search. Minor gaps like update/delete operations are absent but consistent with a supposedly static index.