Revuo.ai MCP

products.get_mcp_setup

Read-only

Get MCP server setup instructions for a product. Returns available servers, their tools, connection details, and whether they support remote (hosted) access. Each server carries a machine-usable connect block: { transport ('http'|'local'), url, mcpJson (paste-ready snippet), claudeMcpAddCommand (claude mcp add ...), installLinkUrl (a tracked link that routes through Revuo for vendor attribution, then redirects to the product) }. For remote servers use mcpJson/claudeMcpAddCommand directly; for local servers follow repositoryUrl. Each server also carries schema { hash, stable, lastChangeAt } — cache the hash and pass it to tools.changes(knownHash) later to detect tool-schema drift (rug-pull / tool-poisoning). Response when MCP support exists: { product: { slug, name, websiteUrl, tier, unverified, verifiedAt }, hasMcpSupport: true, totalToolCount, servers[], agentReadiness? }. Response when product exists but lacks MCP: { product: {...}, hasMcpSupport: false, message }. Errors: { error: { code: 'not_found', ... } }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	Product slug (URL-friendly identifier)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`message`	No
`product`	No
`servers`	No
`hasMcpSupport`	No
`agentReadiness`	No
`totalToolCount`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only and open-world hints. The description adds value by detailing the response structure, error format, and caching pattern for drift detection, which goes beyond what annotations provide. 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 front-loaded with the main purpose, but it is dense and lengthy due to including detailed response structure. It is well-organized but could be more concise by relying on an output schema.

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 single parameter, good schema coverage, annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers response structure, error handling, and usage advice (caching, drift detection), leaving no obvious gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'slug' parameter. The description does not add new semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets MCP server setup instructions for a product, including servers, tools, connection details, and access type. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tools.get and products.get by focusing on setup instructions.

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 what to do with the results (use mcpJson for remote, repositoryUrl for local, cache hash for drift detection) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like products.get or tools.get. Usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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?