Revuo

tools.search

Read-only

Search for MCP tools by capability. Each result is one (product, tool) pair — tools sharing a name across providers are NOT interchangeable, so each provider's tool is its own row with its own description and input schema. Ranking basis: semantic relevance to the query (embedding search); on the lexical fallback (searchMode='lexical') results are name-ordered and rank does NOT reflect relevance. 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) } so callers can merge results across tools consistently, plus preflight annotations { accessModel (open|keyed|account|commercial; whether an agent can call it without becoming a customer first), healthScore (0-100, nullable), readOnly, destructive } so you can judge callability and safety BEFORE selecting. Optional access filter narrows to a single access class. Response: { searchMode ('semantic'|'lexical'), tools: [{ position, rank, normalizedName, displayName, description, inputSchema, productSlug, productName, serverQualifiedName, isRemoteCapable, accessModel, healthScore, readOnly, destructive, tier, unverified (true when no approved vendor claim), verifiedAt (ISO; nullable) }] }. Errors: { error: { code: 'bad_input', ... } }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return
`query`	Yes	Search query to find tools by name or capability. Natural-language phrases work best (semantic search).
`access`	No	Optional access-class filter: 'open' (callable anonymously), 'keyed', 'account', 'commercial', or 'unknown'. Omit for all.
`remoteOnly`	No	If true, only return tools available via remote (network-hosted) MCP servers

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`tools`	No
`searchMode`	No

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds extensive behavioral details: non-interchangeability of tools across providers, ranking basis, preflight annotations (accessModel, healthScore, etc.), and error handling. 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 the purpose, then explains result structure, ranking, filters, output schema, and errors. While long, every sentence serves a purpose and there is no redundancy. Could be slightly more concise, but it is efficient for the information conveyed.

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 (4 parameters, output schema, annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers ranking logic, preflight annotations for callability, error codes, and how to merge results across tools. The presence of an output schema is noted, but the description still explains the output fields sufficiently.

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 description coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context beyond the schema, such as the default for access, the meaning of lexical fallback for ranking, and the effect of remoteOnly. This adds value without redundancy.

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 'Search for MCP tools by capability' and explains each result is a unique (product, tool) pair. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like tools.list_by_name or products.search by focusing on capability-based semantic search.

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 explicit when-to-use context (search by capability) and explains the ranking behavior (semantic vs lexical fallback). It mentions optional filters (access, remoteOnly) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the sibling context and clarity make it adequate.

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?