matchfetch

Match Product

match_product

Words in, barcode out, with how sure. Give a shopper's phrase or a merchant's offer line and a country; get back one barcode with a confidence, or the candidates when it is ambiguous (never a guess), or unknown. Every result carries four verification readings (source authority, disagreement, freshness and authorisation) and one result: verified, listed, stale or unknown. Price and stock are never verified from the record: they are read live, or unknown.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "words": "<words>",
      "country": "<country>"
    },
    "name": "match_product"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`kind`	No	phrase
`words`	Yes
`country`	Yes
`issue_receipt`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses meaningful behavior: it refuses to guess, returns candidate sets when ambiguous, and attaches four verification readings with a single status. It does not explain the non-idempotent, open-world hints or what issuing a receipt implies, so the annotation-derived picture is only partially enriched.

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-loaded with the input/output contract in one compact clause, then the failure modes, then the verification model. Some phrasing is overly compressed ("with how sure", "and one result") and the final sentence is a dense double negative, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description spends most of its second half restating return contents (four readings, four status tokens), while leaving the "kind" values and "issue_receipt" semantics undocumented. The ambiguity/no-guess behavior and the live-price caveat are the genuinely valuable additions; the rest is redundant with structured fields.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It effectively documents "words" and "country", and its phrase-vs-offer-line wording gestures at "kind", but "issue_receipt" (default false) is never mentioned or explained despite being the only plausible side-effecting parameter.

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?

"Words in, barcode out, with how sure" states a concrete transformation (phrase/offer line -> barcode + confidence) with scope (country-scoped). It is clear what the tool does; there are no siblings to differentiate from, which is the only thing keeping this from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the input situation (a shopper's phrase or a merchant's offer line plus a country), which is decent implicit guidance, but it never states when to prefer this tool over doing nothing, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. No alternatives exist, so there is nothing to route to.

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

All matchfetch tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?