RoboHub Robot Catalog

Request vendor introductions

request_vendor_intros

Record a B2B sourcing request with RoboHub on behalf of the user, for manual review by RoboHub's team. Vendor-neutral and free for buyers. Requests from this server are unverified, so RoboHub sends the buyer no confirmation email and guarantees no reply window. Only call this with the user's explicit consent and their real contact details; submissions are rate limited per client and fabricated requests are discarded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes	Work email address where the shortlist should be sent.
`notes`	No	Anything else relevant (optional).
`company`	Yes	Company name.
`country`	No	Country of deployment (optional).
`industry`	Yes	Closest industry bucket for the deployment.
`timeline`	Yes	Deployment timeline.
`use_case`	Yes	What the robots should do, with as much operational detail as possible (environment, scale, constraints).
`robot_slug`	No	Slug of a specific robot the user is interested in (optional).
`budget_range`	Yes	Approximate budget bracket in USD.
`contact_name`	Yes	Full name of the contact person.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / industry / description

Previous value: -"Industry, e.g. 'logistics', 'agriculture', 'security', 'hospitality'."New value: +"Closest industry bucket for the deployment."

addedInput schema / properties / industry / enum

Added value: +[
+  "manufacturing",
+  "warehouse",
+  "healthcare",
+  "agriculture",
+  "security",
+  "hospitality",
+  "construction",
+  "energy",
+  "research",
+  "other"
+]

First observedJun 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that requests are unverified, no confirmation email is sent, no reply window is guaranteed, submissions are rate limited, and fabricated requests are discarded. This is unusually candid and helps the agent set accurate expectations.

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?

The description is three dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides the vendor-neutral and free context, then the critical consent and behavioral caveats.

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?

For a manual-review submission tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, the description covers workflow, caveats, consent, and failure modes well. The only minor gap is that it does not describe what response or confirmation the agent should expect after submission, though the 'no confirmation email' note partially addresses this.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a real-contact-details and consent requirement, which indirectly relates to email and contact_name, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific action ('Record a B2B sourcing request... for manual review') and names the target system (RoboHub). It is easily distinguished from the sibling catalog/search tools, which serve a different purpose.

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 gives clear context for when to call the tool and adds an explicit gate: only call with the user's explicit consent and real contact details. It does not name alternatives, but the sibling tools are robot-information tools, so the intended use is unambiguous.

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

All RoboHub Robot Catalog tools Inspect

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

Need Help?