Revuo

tools.list_by_name

Read-only

List every (product, tool) pair that shares a normalized name. A disambiguation lookup — same name across providers does NOT mean the tools are interchangeable. Ranking basis: productName. Paid tier is NOT a ranking input — it appears only as an annotation. Every result carries { position (1-based), rank (0..1) } plus preflight annotations { accessModel, healthScore, readOnly, destructive }. Response: { normalizedName, total, tools[] (each: position, rank, productSlug, productName, displayName, description, inputSchema, serverQualifiedName, isRemoteCapable, accessModel, healthScore, readOnly, destructive, tier, unverified, verifiedAt) }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Normalized tool name (e.g. 'search', 'create_issue')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`tools`	No
`total`	No
`normalizedName`	No

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Description adds significant value beyond annotations: it notes ranking basis (productName), that every result carries position and rank plus preflight annotations, and details the response structure. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and description complements 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 thorough but not overly verbose. Each sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but structure is effective.

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 that the output schema exists (implied by description of response shape), the description covers all needed aspects: ranking, preflight annotations, and response field details. With one simple parameter and full schema coverage, it is complete.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with a clear description for 'name'. The description reinforces that the name is normalized (e.g., 'search', 'create_issue'), adding slight contextual meaning 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?

The description explicitly states it 'list every (product, tool) pair that shares a normalized name' with a clear verb 'list' and specific resource. It distinguishes itself as a disambiguation lookup, differentiating from sibling tools like tools.search and tools.get.

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 clearly defines the tool's context: 'a disambiguation lookup — same name across providers does NOT mean the tools are interchangeable.' It also clarifies that paid tier is not a ranking input. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the purpose is clear.

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?