Revuo.ai MCP

rankings.get

Read-only

Get the published editorial ranking ("Best {Category}") for a category. Ordering basis: computed editorial score ONLY (verified capability coverage, evidence verification rate & freshness, agent readiness, data completeness — weights published at /api/methodology). Tier is NOT a ranking input for this tool; positions are never sold. Rankings are published snapshots (monthly schedule; manual publishes are marked) — stable between recomputes and citable. Each entry carries { position, rank (0..1), slug, name, score (0-100), breakdown (raw 0-100 per dimension), tier (annotation only), houseProduct (true = built by Revuo's founder — same formula as everyone, disclosed machine-readably), unverified, verifiedAt }. unrankedCount + unranked[] name the category products that failed an eligibility gate, with reasons. Response: { category, computedAt, methodologyVersion, methodologyUrl, trigger, entries[], unranked[] }. Errors: { error: { code: 'not_found', ... } } — also returned when a category has no published ranking yet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max ranked entries to return (caps at 50)
`category`	Yes	Category slug (e.g. 'pim-software'). Use categories.list for valid slugs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`entries`	No
`trigger`	No
`category`	No
`unranked`	No
`computedAt`	No
`methodologyUrl`	No
`methodologyVersion`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond the `readOnlyHint` and `openWorldHint` annotations: rankings are monthly snapshots, stable between recomputes, citable, positions never sold, and machine-readable houseProduct disclosure. 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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the main purpose and then adding key details. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 (2 parameters, output schema present, nested objects), the description fully explains the response structure including entry fields, unranked info, and error format. It is complete for an agent to use confidently.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the ranking computation but does not significantly enhance understanding of the `category` and `limit` parameters beyond the schema. No additional parameter semantics provided.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'published editorial ranking' for a category, specifying ordering basis and key traits. It distinguishes itself from siblings like `categories.list` by focusing on rankings rather than listing categories.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to retrieve published rankings) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. The context is sufficient to infer usage.

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?