Revuo

products.get_mcp_setup

Read-only

Get MCP server setup instructions for a product. Returns available servers, their tools, connection details, and whether they support remote (hosted) access. Each server carries a machine-usable connect block: { transport ('http'|'local'), url, mcpJson (paste-ready snippet), claudeMcpAddCommand (claude mcp add ...), installLinkUrl (a tracked link that routes through Revuo for vendor attribution, then redirects to the product) }. For remote servers use mcpJson/claudeMcpAddCommand directly; for local servers follow repositoryUrl. Each server also carries schema { hash, stable, lastChangeAt } — cache the hash and pass it to tools.changes(knownHash) later to detect tool-schema drift (rug-pull / tool-poisoning). Response when MCP support exists: { product: { slug, name, websiteUrl, tier, unverified, verifiedAt }, hasMcpSupport: true, totalToolCount, servers[], agentReadiness? }. Response when product exists but lacks MCP: { product: {...}, hasMcpSupport: false, message }. Errors: { error: { code: 'not_found', ... } }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	Product slug (URL-friendly identifier)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`message`	No
`product`	No
`servers`	No
`hasMcpSupport`	No
`agentReadiness`	No
`totalToolCount`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description thoroughly details what the tool returns, including the connect block structure and error cases. It aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) and adds useful behavioral context like caching strategies, without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides detailed yet structured information about the response. While somewhat verbose, every sentence adds value given the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the input, output schema (including error responses), usage scenarios, and caching advice. It is fully self-contained, leaving no critical gaps for an AI agent to interpret the tool's behavior.

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?

The schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'slug'. The description repeats the schema's description ('Product slug (URL-friendly identifier)') but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Get MCP server setup instructions for a product.' It specifies the exact resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like products.get or products.search by focusing on MCP setup details.

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 provides specific usage guidance, such as how to handle remote vs local servers and mentions caching the hash for drift detection. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools or conditions when not to use this tool.

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?