Revuo

products.search

Read-only

Search for B2B SaaS products by name OR by capability. The query is first resolved against the canonical capability taxonomy (e.g. 'salesforce-integration', 'xrechnung-support', 'soc2'); on hit, products that claim that capability are returned. Falls back to name/slug/tagline substring search. Optional category scope. Ranking basis: currentScore desc (computed editorial score), then name. Paid tier is NOT a ranking input — tier appears only as an annotation on results. 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: { query, matchType (none|exactSlug|canonicalSlug|nlpFallback), resolvedCapabilities[], products[] }. Each product carries { position, rank, tier (free|verified|featured — annotation only), houseProduct (true = built by Revuo's founder; conflict-of-interest disclosure), sponsored (true = paid Featured placement), unverified (true when the listing has no approved vendor claim; omitted otherwise — absence means an approved vendor claim, NOT crawl freshness; use verifiedAt for that), verifiedAt (ISO timestamp of last claim crawl; absent if never crawled), currentScore (0-100), compositeScore (agent-readiness 0-100, nullable), matchedCapability (true if surfaced by capability path) }. Errors: { error: { code: 'not_found'|'bad_input', ... } }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Search query — capability slug or natural-language description; falls back to name match
`category`	No	Optional category slug to filter results

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`query`	No
`products`	No
`matchType`	No
`resolvedCapabilities`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds significant behavioral detail: ranking basis, paid tier not affecting ranking, house product disclosure, unverified flag meaning, error codes, and result attributes. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is detailed but well-structured: it starts with purpose, then explains fallback, ranking, result fields, and errors. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 complexity of the tool (two search modes, many result fields, error handling), the description is thorough and covers everything needed for correct invocation. The output schema handles return structure, so the description appropriately focuses on semantics and behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds value by explaining the query can be a capability slug or natural language, and that category is optional and filters by slug. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool searches for B2B SaaS products by name or capability, with fallback and ranking details. It distinguishes itself from siblings like products.find_by_capability by describing dual search modes, but could explicitly note when to use this vs. that sibling.

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 explains how the tool works (query resolution, fallback, ranking) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare to sibling tools like products.find_by_capability.

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?