Revuo.ai MCP

products.find_by_capability

Read-only

Find B2B SaaS products that support a specific capability — an integration with a named service ('salesforce-integration'), a data format ('xrechnung-support'), an industry standard ('eclass-support'), or a compliance certification ('soc2'). Accepts either a canonical capability slug or natural language; resolves to a structured capability when possible. Ranking basis: currentScore desc (computed editorial score), then name. 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, scales linearly down by ordinal position) } so callers can merge results across tools consistently. Response: { capability, matchType (none|exactSlug|canonicalSlug|nlpFallback — exactSlug & canonicalSlug are deterministic; nlpFallback is heuristic), resolvedFeatures[], products[] }. Each product: { position, rank, slug, name, tagline, websiteUrl, tier, unverified (true when no approved vendor claim), verifiedAt, evidence[] (per-claim: featureSlug, evidenceUrl, notes, source, confidence) }. Empty: { capability, matchType, message, suggestedSlugs[] } when no capability matched, or products: [] when capability matched but no products claim it yet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return
`category`	No	Optional category slug to scope the search (e.g. 'pim', 'tender-management', 'billing')
`capability`	Yes	Capability slug ('salesforce-integration') OR natural-language description ('integrates with Salesforce')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`message`	No
`products`	No
`matchType`	No
`capability`	No
`suggestedSlugs`	No
`resolvedFeatures`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond annotations, detailing ranking (currentScore desc, then name), that paid tier is not a ranking input but appears as annotation, and that results include position and rank for merging across tools. Also explains match types and empty responses.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Though lengthy, every sentence adds necessary detail about match types, ranking, and response structure. Information is front-loaded with purpose, then progressively detailed.

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 fully covers the tool's purpose, behavior, ranking, match types, and response structure, even though an output schema exists. No gaps remain for this complex 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'capability' accepts natural language or slug, that category scopes search, and what ranking behavior is, improving understanding beyond schema alone.

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 finds B2B SaaS products supporting a specific capability, listing types (integration, data format, standard, compliance). It distinguishes from siblings like 'products.search' by focusing on capability matching rather than general 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?

Provides clear context for when to use (capability-based search) but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct alternatives among siblings. The ranking details and paid tier note add useful context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Revuo.ai MCP 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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are generally distinct, but products.search and products.find_by_capability overlap in capability-based search, causing potential ambiguity. However, descriptions clarify the differences.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming follows a dot-separated pattern with verb-noun, but there are inconsistencies: use of underscores (mcp.score_server), varying verb choices (list, find, get, search), and mixing of object and action order.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools cover a comprehensive range of functionality for a directory/MCP server—from browsing categories to detailed tool search and drift detection—without feeling excessive.

Completeness4/5

The set covers most key operations (CRUD, search, rankings, MCP setup, change detection), but lacks tools for updating or modifying data, which is acceptable for a mostly read-driven directory API.

Resources

Need Help?