MCP Finder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: it federates specific registries, uses live use counts from Smithery, dedupes results, and ranks remote Streamable HTTP servers first. It 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 compact and front-loaded: a clear action sentence, followed by concrete behavioral specifics, then a usage directive. Every sentence adds value and there is no 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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it names the data sources, ranking behavior, returned fields, and when to use it. It could be slightly stronger by directing the agent to mcp_details for follow-up on a specific server, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with defaults, constraints, and purpose. The description adds only an example of capability phrasing, not parameter-level semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for existing MCP servers that provide a capability,' with concrete examples. It further distinguishes the tool by describing federation across MCP Registry, Smithery, and npm, deduplication, and remote-first ranking, making its discovery role unambiguous relative to the sibling mcp_details.

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 gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Use before building or asking the user to build a tool.' It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention mcp_details as the alternative for follow-up detail, but the stated use case is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context: task_context tunes the result, and the service uses it to learn what agents need. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, followed by a single clear use case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

For a simple two-parameter lookup tool with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description fully covers what the tool returns, where the name comes from, and why the task_context parameter is required. The absence of an output schema is adequately compensated by naming the returned detail categories.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds concrete registry name formats and clarifies that the name must come from find_mcp results. It also adds rationale for task_context beyond the schema's one-line description.

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?

States a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: one MCP server's tool list, transports, and install details, keyed by name. It also distinguishes itself from sibling find_mcp by referencing the registry name formats and the check-before-install use case.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to check whether a server exposes a needed tool before installing it. It references find_mcp as the source of the name, giving clear context, though it does not spell out when not to use it as a separate exclusion.

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