Revuo.ai MCP

tools.find_for_task

Read-only

Find the best MCP tools for a given task. Describe what you want to accomplish (e.g. 'manage github issues', 'send slack messages', 'query a database') and get ranked results — each result is one (product, tool) pair, since same-named tools across providers are NOT interchangeable. By default only shows tools available via remote (network-hosted) servers. Audience: agent builders looking for installable MCP tools — for B2B SaaS recommendations, prefer products.search or products.find_by_capability. Ranking basis: relevance score desc (+1 per term hit, +3 for full-phrase hit); within an equal relevance tier, callable-now (Open access) + remote + healthy tools are boosted ahead — never a hard filter (a product-bound tool stays in its own money query), then productName. 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) } plus preflight annotations { accessModel (open|keyed|account|commercial), healthScore (0-100, nullable), readOnly, destructive, callableNow (true = usable anonymously right now), setup (one-line 'how to get access' pointer for non-Open tools) }. Response: { task, matchType (none|exactSlug|canonicalSlug|nlpFallback), resolvedCapabilities[], capabilityProducts[] (B2B SaaS products that claim the same capability — empty when matchType=none), results[] (MCP-tool-level matches), buckets { callableNow, requiresSetup } }. Each result: { position, rank, normalizedName, displayName, description, inputSchema, relevance, accessModel, healthScore, readOnly, destructive, callableNow, setup, productSlug, productName, serverQualifiedName, isRemoteCapable, tier, unverified, verifiedAt }. Empty case: { task, matchType, message, suggestedQueries[], suggestedCapabilities[] }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of tool results to return
`access`	No	Optional access-class filter: 'open' (callable anonymously), 'keyed', 'account', 'commercial', or 'unknown'. Omit for all — Open tools are boosted, not required.
`remoteOnly`	No	If true (default), only return tools from remote-capable MCP servers
`taskDescription`	Yes	Natural language description of the task you want to accomplish

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	No
`error`	No
`buckets`	No
`message`	No
`results`	No
`matchType`	No
`suggestedQueries`	No
`capabilityProducts`	No
`resolvedCapabilities`	No
`suggestedCapabilities`	No

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses ranking logic (relevance score, boost for callable-now/remote/healthy), confirms paid tier is not a ranking input, explains result annotations (accessModel, healthScore, etc.), and states default filter for remote servers. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint).

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 quite lengthy but well-structured with clear sections (audience, ranking, result format, empty case). It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Some detail could be compressed, but overall efficient for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Covers all aspects: usage, ranking, result structure, annotations, empty case, and differentiation from siblings. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete.

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% and schema descriptions are clear. The tool description adds context for the access parameter (optional access-class filter) and explains default values for limit and remoteOnly, providing extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 the best MCP tools for a given task, specifies the verb 'find', resource 'MCP tools', and distinguishes from siblings like products.search or products.find_by_capability by explicitly stating the audience and alternative use cases.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit usage guidance: audience (agent builders), when to use this tool vs alternatives (for B2B SaaS recommendations, use products.search), default behavior (remoteOnly true, Open tools boosted), and ranking details.

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?