Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Agent Tools API

by app.openkrill
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Index and search openkrill MCP tools by task and keyword

index_tools
Read-onlyIdempotent

LinkedIn recruiter jobs feedback broken links: search openkrill MCP tools by task. Use this to find a tool for recruiter search, LinkedIn keywords, jobs, feedback, a missing tool, bug reports, broken links, CVEs, packages, a domain check, or any other task. Lists tool name, a plain task phrase, and the MCP URL to connect. Feedback itself is submit_feedback on this same server.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "index_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskNoAlias for query: task phrase to search.
queryNoOptional task keyword or phrase to search tools (e.g. 'recruiter', 'linkedin', 'feedback', 'broken links', 'jobs'). Omit to list all tools.
keywordNoAlias for query: keyword to search.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYes
queryNoThe search phrase, when one was given.
toolsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "query": {
+      "description": "The search phrase, when one was given.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tools": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "server": {
+            "description": "Server name.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "task": {
+            "description": "What the tool does, in plain words.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "tool": {
+            "description": "Tool name to call.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "url": {
+            "description": "MCP URL of the server that has the tool.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "tool",
+          "task",
+          "url",
+          "server"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "tools",
+    "count"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results list 'tool name, a plain task phrase, and the MCP URL to connect', which is useful output context, but nothing on ranking, pagination, or match behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, but the first is keyword-stuffing ('LinkedIn recruiter jobs feedback broken links:') rather than informative framing, and the middle sentence is a long comma-spliced list. Load-bearing content is present but not cleanly front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema and rich annotations, the description only needs to convey purpose, search scope, and routing; it does that, including the forward reference to submit_feedback. Minor gaps around result ordering/pagination are acceptable given the output schema exists.

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% and the schema itself documents the alias relationship (task/keyword are aliases for query). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The core sentence 'search openkrill MCP tools by task' states a specific verb (search) and its resource (the MCP tool catalog), which is clearly distinct from siblings like list_jobs or submit_feedback. The leading keyword string is noisy, but the actual purpose remains parseable.

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?

It gives concrete contexts ('recruiter search, LinkedIn keywords, jobs, feedback, ... bug reports, CVEs') and explicitly routes one of them: 'Feedback itself is submit_feedback on this same server.' No explicit when-not-to-use, but the 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 Agent Tools API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources