List the middleware capabilities Devadex indexes (dialogue, auth, inventory, networking, memory, …) with how many middleware exist for each, plus the platforms available. Use this to pick a capability/platform for search_middleware.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It transparently describes what the tool returns: middleware capabilities with counts and available platforms. It does not discuss performance or side effects, but as a no-parameter listing tool, the transparency is adequate.
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 two sentences: the first states what the tool lists, the second gives a direct usage instruction. Every word contributes value; there is no repetition or filler.
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 description fully explains the tool's output (capabilities with counts, platforms) and its role within the middleware search workflow. Since there is no output schema, this is sufficient for a zero-parameter listing 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.
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 ('List') and the resource ('middleware capabilities Devadex indexes'), enumerates example categories, and mentions the extra output of platforms. It further distinguishes itself by tying its use to picking values for search_middleware, which is one of the sibling 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 explicitly directs the agent to use this tool to pick a capability/platform for search_middleware. It lacks a formal 'when not to use' clause, but the specific use-case guidance is clear and actionable, going beyond mere implication.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: searching for indie software, searching for middleware, listing capabilities, retrieving a specific listing, and viewing index stats. The two search tools target different domains (software vs middleware) and descriptions clarify the distinction.
Most tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (get_listing, list_capabilities, search_indie, search_middleware). However, 'index_stats' is a noun phrase rather than a verb_noun, which is a minor deviation from the otherwise consistent convention.
With only 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for a discovery service. Each tool earns its place: two search functions, one capability enumerator, one detail retriever, and one stats overview. No redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface fully covers the discovery domain: users can search indie software, search middleware, list capabilities for middleware search, retrieve full details of any listing by ID, and understand the scope of the index. No obvious gaps for a read-only discovery service.
