search_catalog
Search the llmsmap.ru catalog by product name or URL.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of sites to return, capped at 50. | |
| query | Yes | Search term (product name or part of URL). |
llmsmap.me International Directory
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to carry the burden, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the primitive action (search) without mentioning read-only status, rate limits, result formatting, or error behavior. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves the agent without important context.
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?
The description is one concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. There is no redundant wording or filler; every word contributes to clarifying what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 parameters, all described), but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not mention the return format, pagination, or any caveats. It is minimally adequate for a basic search tool but leaves the agent without expectations about the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'by product name or URL' aligns with the query parameter but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states. Limit is not mentioned in the description, but the schema fully describes it.
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 identifies the action (search), the resource (llmsmap.ru catalog), and the search criteria (product name or URL). It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling list_catalog, but the verb 'search' implicitly contrasts with 'list', so it is more than vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of list_catalog. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose between the two tools. The usage is only implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists the entire catalog, the other searches by name or URL. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can easily select the right tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'list_catalog' and 'search_catalog' use lowercase snake_case with a clear action and object. The naming is predictable and uniform.
Tool Count3/5
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a directory service, which typically requires more operations (e.g., get details, pagination, filtering). However, for a simple read-only catalog, the count is borderline acceptable.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core operations of listing and searching a catalog, which is the stated purpose. Minor gaps include lack of a 'get_single_site' tool or explicit pagination controls, but agents can work around these with the existing tools.