Revuo

products.find_by_capability

Read-only

Find B2B SaaS products that support a specific capability — an integration with a named service ('salesforce-integration'), a data format ('xrechnung-support'), an industry standard ('eclass-support'), or a compliance certification ('soc2'). Accepts either a canonical capability slug or natural language; resolves to a structured capability when possible. Ranking basis: currentScore desc (computed editorial score), then name. Paid tier is NOT a ranking input — it appears only as an annotation. Every result carries { position (1-based), rank (0..1; 1.0 = top, scales linearly down by ordinal position) } so callers can merge results across tools consistently. Response: { capability, matchType (none|exactSlug|canonicalSlug|nlpFallback — exactSlug & canonicalSlug are deterministic; nlpFallback is heuristic), resolvedFeatures[], products[] }. Each product: { position, rank, slug, name, tagline, websiteUrl, tier, unverified (true when no approved vendor claim), verifiedAt, evidence[] (per-claim: featureSlug, evidenceUrl, notes, source, confidence) }. Empty: { capability, matchType, message, suggestedSlugs[] } when no capability matched, or products: [] when capability matched but no products claim it yet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return
`category`	No	Optional category slug to scope the search (e.g. 'pim', 'tender-management', 'billing')
`capability`	Yes	Capability slug ('salesforce-integration') OR natural-language description ('integrates with Salesforce')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`message`	No
`products`	No
`matchType`	No
`capability`	No
`suggestedSlugs`	No
`resolvedFeatures`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds detailed behavioral traits: ranking by currentScore then name, paid tier excluded from ranking, position and rank in results, match types (exactSlug, canonicalSlug, nlpFallback). This fully informs the agent of behavior beyond annotations.

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?

The description is comprehensive and well-structured, starting with purpose then covering ranking, response shape, and empty result handling. It is slightly verbose due to full response detail, but every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity. Could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (NLP resolution, ranking, varied match types), the description is complete. It covers input handling, ranking logic, response structure (with position/rank), and empty result behavior. The presence of an output schema does not reduce the need for explanation, and the description excels.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds substantial meaning: capability accepts natural language, resolves to structured capability; category scopes search; limit is documented. This exceeds the schema definitions and provides rich semantic context.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find B2B SaaS products that support a specific capability.' It enumerates the types of capabilities (integration, data format, industry standard, compliance) and explains that input can be a canonical slug or natural language with resolution fallback. This specificity differentiates it from siblings like products.search or products.find_agent_ready.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implicitly advises when to use the tool (when finding products for a capability) and includes a note that paid tier is not a ranking input. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or provide when-not guidance, which would strengthen the dimension.

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

All Revuo tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The namespace grouping separates products, tools, taxonomy, and rankings cleanly, and each tool's description points to its intended query mode. Some overlap exists between products.search and products.find_by_capability, and between tools.search and tools.find_for_task, but the descriptions are detailed enough that an agent can usually pick correctly. categories.list and directory.overview also overlap, though directory.overview is explicitly marked as the preferred entry-point.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set follows a predictable `resource.action` dotted convention, with all-lowercase names and snake_case within actions. Minor deviations such as `directory.overview`, `tools.changes`, and `mcp.score_server` mix noun actions and verb+object phrases, but the overall pattern remains readable and easy to guess.

Tool Count4/5

14 tools is appropriate for a read-only directory covering products, capabilities, rankings, MCP setup, and tool discovery. The count is slightly high because the search/find family has several close variants, but each variant has a distinct query style and use case.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the domain thoroughly: taxonomy, product search and details, capability lookup, agent-readiness scoring, rankings, MCP setup, tool discovery, and schema-drift detection. Cross-references such as products.get_mcp_setup supplying the hash consumed by tools.changes close the main workflow loops without dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?