Skip to main content
Glama

Discover tools

discover
Read-onlyIdempotent

looot: free search of the data API catalog for up to 5 eligible endpoints by task, capability, category, provider, endpoint, input-schema, output-schema, schema, or hybrid mode (auto infers one). Each result has bounded relevance/evidence/availability/price/freshness components and its category; unknown evidence stays distinct from zero. minimumScore is applied before resultLimit. Identity modes never substitute another endpoint or provider. Never returns a mock endpoint. detail changes only how much of each candidate comes back, never ranking or matching: "full" (default) is the whole candidate; "title" returns rank, endpointId, provider, name, capability, category, estimatedPrice, priceBasis, costPerSuccessUsd, async, works {rate, runs, p50Ms, thin} and sourceCapability, enough to pick one to inspect. capability is the job id; sourceCapability the raw registered slug. Full candidates carry credential ("platform_own_key_optional": the platform key runs it, your own key is optional). No endpoint for the named job: candidates is empty and meta.warnings has "no_supply_for_job: : ...". maxPrice removed every match: meta.warnings has "price_above_max: : ..." naming the cheapest. jobInputs are the inputs for the job:<id> run; a pinned tool id takes that tool's own field names, so inspect it first. For more than 5 results or a whole category, use search (limit up to 200, category/provider/capability/price filters). This search is lexical: when the job is easier to describe in a sentence and nothing here is a confident match, discover_smart judges a shortlist with one small paid AI call (see its description for the cost). prefer (balanced default, cheapest, reliable, fastest; ranking is an alias) orders providers inside a job; each full candidate's facts says why. Field details: https://api.looot.ai/llms-full.txt.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoauto
queryNo
detailNofull
preferNo
rankingNo
categoryNo
maxPriceNo
providerNo
capabilityNo
endpointIdNo
resultLimitNo
minimumScoreNo
eligibilitiesNo
executionModesNo
taskDescriptionNo
allowedProvidersNo
blockedProvidersNo
includeUnavailableNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: it never returns a mock endpoint, minimumScore is applied before resultLimit, identity modes never substitute endpoints/providers, and it enumerates the exact warning strings emitted when supply or price filters empty the result set.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core definition (free, up to 5 endpoints, search axes) before the operational detail, and the dense length is largely justified by 18 undocumented parameters. Some clauses are awkward and packed, but little is pure repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 18-parameter tool with no output schema and no per-parameter schema docs, the description covers the return shape well (the `title` field list, `full` candidate `credential` and `facts`), the failure modes, and the key controls. A few filter parameters and the relevance/evidence/availability/price component semantics remain only partially explained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 18 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full load and does explain the high-value ones: `mode` values, `detail` (and that it never affects ranking), `prefer`/`ranking` alias, `minimumScore` ordering, and `jobInputs` field-name semantics. It leaves several parameters unaddressed, notably `eligibilities`, `executionModes`, `allowedProviders`, `blockedProviders`, and `includeUnavailable`, so the coverage is strong but incomplete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (free search of the data API catalog) plus a hard scope (up to 5 eligible endpoints) and the axes it searches by. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling `search` (more than 5 results / whole category) and `discover_smart` (sentence-described jobs), so an agent can pick it without opening other schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: use `search` for >5 results or a whole category, and `discover_smart` when the job is best described in a sentence and nothing here is a confident match. It also states the constraint that identity modes never substitute another endpoint or provider, which bounds how results may be trusted.

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.

Resources