company-intelligence

list_skus

List the Velarion catalog — every product an agent can see and (where APPROVED_SELLABLE) buy.

Returns all APPROVED_SELLABLE SKUs with full detail by default (sku_id, name, price, currency, fulfillment type, latency, caveats, classification). Set include_non_sellable=true to also return NEEDS_OWNER_APPROVAL / UNSELLABLE / KILLED rows, each clearly tagged with its classification and blockers so inventory is never hidden — only de-prioritized. No price is fabricated: unverified prices are surfaced as-is with their classification, never quoted as billable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent_token`	No
`include_non_sellable`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that unverified prices are never fabricated and items are de-prioritized not hidden. Lacks details on authentication or rate limits, but overall transparent for a listing tool.

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?

Description is approximately 120 words, efficiently packed with useful information. Front-loaded with purpose, uses bullet-like structure for return fields, and no superfluous sentences.

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 there is an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers default behavior, parameter effects, and edge cases (non-sellable items) comprehensively. No obvious gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains include_non_sellable thoroughly (effect, return types) but does not document agent_token. One of two parameters is well-covered.

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 lists the Velarion catalog, with specific verb 'List' and resource 'catalog'/'products'. It distinguishes from siblings like place_order or fulfill_paid_order, which are not listing tools.

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 explains default behavior (returns APPROVED_SELLABLE) and how to extend with include_non_sellable parameter. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use, but given no sibling listing tools, the usage context is clear.

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

All company-intelligence 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct purpose: pay benchmarking, multi-company comparison, governance card generation, risk prediction, compensation lookup, product pricing, ordering, fulfillment, and catalog listing. No two tools overlap significantly; descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., benchmark_executive_pay, compare_companies, place_order). The pattern is uniform across all 9 tools, with no mixed conventions or abbreviations that break consistency.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the server covers its domain—executive compensation, governance, risk, and commerce—without being too sparse or overwhelming. Each tool has a clear role, and the count fits the scope well.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core needs: pay benchmarking, multi-company comparison, governance card, risk prediction, compensation data, and product commerce (pricing, ordering, fulfillment). Minor gaps exist, such as lacking a tool for historical data retrieval or quote updates, but the set is largely complete for its stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?