Skip to main content
Glama

products.search

Read-only

Search for B2B SaaS products by name OR by capability. The query is first resolved against the canonical capability taxonomy (e.g. 'salesforce-integration', 'xrechnung-support', 'soc2'); on hit, products that claim that capability are returned. Falls back to name/slug/tagline substring search. Optional category scope. Ranking basis: currentScore desc (computed editorial score), then name. Paid tier is NOT a ranking input — tier appears only as an annotation on results. 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: { query, matchType (none|exactSlug|canonicalSlug|nlpFallback), resolvedCapabilities[], products[] }. Each product carries { position, rank, tier (free|verified|featured — annotation only), houseProduct (true = built by Revuo's founder; conflict-of-interest disclosure), sponsored (true = paid Featured placement), unverified (true when the listing has no approved vendor claim; omitted otherwise — absence means an approved vendor claim, NOT crawl freshness; use verifiedAt for that), verifiedAt (ISO timestamp of last claim crawl; absent if never crawled), currentScore (0-100), compositeScore (agent-readiness 0-100, nullable), matchedCapability (true if surfaced by capability path) }. Errors: { error: { code: 'not_found'|'bad_input', ... } }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query — capability slug or natural-language description; falls back to name match
categoryNoOptional category slug to filter results

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
queryNo
productsNo
matchTypeNo
resolvedCapabilitiesNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses critical behavioral details: paid tier is not a ranking input, every result includes position/rank for merging, conflict-of-interest disclosure (houseProduct), sponsored status, unverified flag semantics, and error codes. This fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior.

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 fairly long but well-structured: core behavior first, then ranking, response shape, and field details. Every sentence adds unique value, though some details (e.g., exact field semantics) could be inferred from the output schema. It is concise for the amount of 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 output schema is provided, the description covers all necessary aspects: query resolution logic, ranking, result structure, field meanings, and error handling. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds crucial context: 'query' accepts capability slugs or natural language, with fallback to name match; 'category' is an optional slug. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 searches for B2B SaaS products by name or capability. It explains the two-step resolution (canonical taxonomy first, then fallback) and distinguishes from siblings like 'products.find_by_capability' and 'tools.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 solid guidance on when to use this tool (general search by name or capability) and how results are ranked and annotated, enabling consistent merging. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling context implies alternatives for specific needs.

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

Try in Browser

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