Revuo

rankings.get

Read-only

Get the published editorial ranking ("Best {Category}") for a category. Ordering basis: computed editorial score ONLY (verified capability coverage, evidence verification rate & freshness, agent readiness, data completeness — weights published at /api/methodology). Tier is NOT a ranking input for this tool; positions are never sold. Rankings are published snapshots (monthly schedule; manual publishes are marked) — stable between recomputes and citable. Each entry carries { position, rank (0..1), slug, name, score (0-100), breakdown (raw 0-100 per dimension), tier (annotation only), houseProduct (true = built by Revuo's founder — same formula as everyone, disclosed machine-readably), unverified, verifiedAt }. unrankedCount + unranked[] name the category products that failed an eligibility gate, with reasons. Response: { category, computedAt, methodologyVersion, methodologyUrl, trigger, entries[], unranked[] }. Errors: { error: { code: 'not_found', ... } } — also returned when a category has no published ranking yet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max ranked entries to return (caps at 50)
`category`	Yes	Category slug (e.g. 'pim-software'). Use categories.list for valid slugs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`entries`	No
`trigger`	No
`category`	No
`unranked`	No
`computedAt`	No
`methodologyUrl`	No
`methodologyVersion`	No

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but description adds substantial context: ordering basis with published weights, tier not an input, positions never sold, publication schedule, stability, and entry details including houseProduct disclosure. No 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?

Description is lengthy but well-structured, each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose and key uniqueness. Could be slightly tighter but efficient for the 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?

Given output schema exists (implied by detailed response structure in description), the description fully covers return format, errors, and edge cases. Combined with full schema coverage, it is complete for a complex ranking tool.

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 describes both parameters (limit, category) with coverage 100%. Description adds 'caps at 50' for limit and references categories.list for valid slugs, providing useful clarification beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'published editorial ranking for a category.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by detailing ordering basis, tier exclusion, and position non-saleability.

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?

Description provides clear context for when to use (get ranking for a category) and references categories.list for valid slugs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs. alternatives like products.search or directory.overview.

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?