Search uneed.best's curated product directory: launches, rankings, deals and alternatives
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.4/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.8/5.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but fetch/get_product and search/search_products overlap slightly; descriptions clarify the difference, but an agent might still confuse them.
Naming mixes verb styles: 'fetch', 'get_*', 'list_*', 'search' vs 'search_products'. No single consistent pattern, though grouped by function.
9 tools is a reasonable count for a product directory server. It covers key operations without being bloated.
Covers search, details, alternatives, trending, recent launches, categories, and deals. Minor gaps like listing products by category are partially covered by search filters, but overall scope is solid.
fetchFetch a Uneed productAUse this to retrieve the full uneed.best profile of a product returned by search, by its id (the product slug). Same data as get_product, wrapped in the {id, title, text, url} document shape deep research expects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product slug returned by search |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds information about the return format (document shape for deep research) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, or authorization needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with front-loaded action ('Use this to retrieve...') and no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with good annotations, the description covers the purpose, usage context, and relationship to siblings. It references 'deep research expects' without elaboration, but this is likely acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already describes the 'id' parameter as 'Product slug returned by search'. The description merely restates this (by its id, the product slug) without adding new semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a full product profile by its slug, and distinguishes from sibling 'search' which returns summaries. It also notes it returns the same data as 'get_product' but in a specific document shape for deep research.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context that the tool is used after 'search', mentioning the id is the product slug from search. It references 'get_product' as an alternative but does not explicitly state when to choose one over the other, nor does it list exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_alternativesFind alternativesAUse this when the user wants alternatives or competitors to a product listed on uneed.best. Alternatives are ranked by weighted tag overlap (rare, specific shared tags count more than broad ones) — the same signal that powers Uneed's alternatives pages — and each result carries the shared tags explaining WHY it is an alternative. Paid placement does not affect this ranking. Use get_product on a result's slug for details and deals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug of the product to find alternatives to | |
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds significant context beyond annotations: ranking by weighted tag overlap, shared tags explaining results, and that paid placement does not affect ranking. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a read-only tool with two parameters: explains purpose, ranking, paid policy, and suggests next step (use get_product). No output schema needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (slug described, limit not). Description does not add parameter details beyond what's in schema, failing to compensate for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool finds alternatives or competitors to a product on uneed.best, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('alternatives'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_products or get_product.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly specifies when to use (user wants alternatives/competitors) and mentions ranking details; lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_productGet product detailsAUse this when you have a product slug and need its full public profile on uneed.best: description, website URL, category, tags, pricing, launch date, community stats (votes, rating, review count), active promo deals and social links. premium: true means the product currently pays for featured placement on the Uneed website — treat it as a disclosure, not a quality signal. url is the maker-supplied website link and may occasionally be an affiliate link; uneed_url is always the neutral Uneed listing. Find slugs with search_products, get_trending, get_recent_launches or get_alternatives.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The product slug on uneed.best, e.g. "resend" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and non-destructive. Description adds valuable behavioral details: explains 'premium: true' is a disclosure not quality signal, and 'url' may be affiliate vs 'uneed_url' being neutral. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise (3-4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, description adequately covers return fields and special meanings. Missing output schema but details provided in text.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage, describing the 'slug' parameter with example. Description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what schema provides, meeting baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool retrieves a full public profile for a product slug, lists specific fields returned (description, URL, category, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning how to find slugs (search_products, get_trending, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: when you have a product slug and need its full profile. Provides guidance on finding slugs via sibling tools. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_recent_launchesRecent launchesAUse this when the user asks what is new or what launched recently. Lists the most recent product launches on uneed.best, newest first, optionally filtered by category (slug or name, see list_categories) and/or tag slug. Ordered strictly by launch date — paid placement is not a factor. Combine with get_trending to know which of them the community voted up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Tag slug | |
| limit | No | ||
| category | No | Category slug or exact name (see list_categories) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), description adds that ordering is by launch date with no paid placement influence, providing useful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, all essential, front-loaded with usage instruction. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers ordering, filtering, and relation to get_trending. No output schema but description is sufficient for this list tool; minor gap on return format details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 67% coverage; description adds that category can be slug or exact name and references list_categories, enhancing parameter understanding beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Lists the most recent product launches on uneed.best, newest first' and distinguishes from sibling tool get_trending by mentioning combination usage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks what is new or what launched recently' and provides context for filtering and when to combine with get_trending.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_trendingCommunity rankingsAUse this when the user asks what is trending, popular or winning on uneed.best. Returns the community-voted rankings for a period: 'daily' | 'weekly' | 'monthly' | 'yearly'. Rankings cover products LAUNCHED in the period, ordered purely by summed community vote value — paid placement is not a factor; weeks are ISO weeks (Monday-Sunday) anchored to America/Los_Angeles, the launch timezone. Pass date (YYYY-MM-DD) to get the period containing that date (e.g. a past week's winners); omit it for the current period. Each entry's rank is its position in the leaderboard.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Any date inside the wanted period (YYYY-MM-DD). Omit for the current period. | |
| limit | No | ||
| period | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: rankings cover products launched in the period, ordered purely by community vote (no paid placement), weeks are ISO weeks anchored to America/Los_Angeles, and date parameter behavior. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph with no fluff, front-loading the main purpose. It could be slightly more concise but is well-structured and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects: ranking criteria, timezone handling, date semantics. Missing details about pagination or default limit behavior, but overall complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 3 parameters with 33% description coverage. The description explains the semantics of period (enum of time ranges), date (gets period containing the date, omit for current), and limit (default 20, implicitly). This adds value beyond the schema, though limit is not explicitly described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns community-voted rankings for a period, specifying when to use it ('trending, popular or winning on uneed.best'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing the unique ranking mechanism and community voting aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks what is trending, popular or winning on uneed.best.' It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_categoriesList categoriesAUse this when you need the valid category values before filtering, or when the user asks what Uneed covers. Lists uneed.best's product categories with their slug, description and number of listed products. Feed the slug or name to the get_recent_launches and list_deals filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds context by specifying return fields (slug, description, number of listed products), which is useful beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with usage guidance. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully explains purpose, usage, and return content. It also connects to sibling tools for further actions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info; it is not missing anything.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool lists product categories and specifies when to use it (to get valid category values before filtering, or when user asks what Uneed covers). Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it provides slugs/names for other filters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'when you need valid category values before filtering' or when user asks about coverage. Provides alternative usage: feed slug/name to get_recent_launches and list_deals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_dealsActive dealsAUse this when the user asks about discounts, promo codes or deals on digital products. Lists the active offers published by makers on uneed.best, each attached to the product it applies to (name, slug, URL, category). Optionally filter by category. Use get_product on a deal's slug for the full product profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Category slug or exact name (see list_categories) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and non-destructive. Description adds context about what is returned (name, slug, URL, category) and optional filtering, which is useful beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences covering purpose, usage, and additional guidance. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool (1 optional param) with all necessary information: what it does, when to use, what it returns, and relation to sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter. Description adds that filtering is optional and references list_categories for format, complementing the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists active deals/discounts on digital products, specific to uneed.best. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_product by noting that each deal is attached to a product.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks about discounts, promo codes or deals on digital products.' Also provides alternative: use get_product for full product profile.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchSearch Uneed productsAUse this when a deep research run needs to look up digital tools and products on uneed.best. Same catalog and same relevance ordering as search_products, returned as {id, title, url} documents; pass a result's id to fetch for the full profile. Prefer search_products when you want structured product fields directly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it returns `{id, title, url}` documents with same catalog and relevance ordering as search_products, and instructs to pass id to fetch for full profile. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff. Each sentence provides essential information: usage context, comparison with sibling, output format, and follow-up action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, output format, relationship with fetch and search_products. No output schema exists, but description adequately explains return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% so description must compensate. The single parameter 'query' is implied by 'look up digital tools and products' but not explicitly documented. However, context makes it clear, so minor deduction.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'look up digital tools and products on uneed.best' and distinguishes it from search_products by noting the returned format and use case. It also explains how to further use results with fetch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use this tool ('deep research run') and when to prefer the sibling search_products ('when you want structured product fields'). Provides clear context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_productsSearch productsAUse this when the user is looking for a digital tool or product by need, keyword or name. Searches uneed.best's directory of thousands of tools (SaaS, AI, dev, design, marketing...) with full-text and typo-tolerant matching over names, descriptions and tags. Results are ordered by relevance and popularity only — paid placement never affects the order here. premium: true on a result means that product pays for featured placement on the Uneed website; surface it as a disclosure, not as a quality signal. Use a result's slug with get_product for the full profile, deals and community stats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Search terms, e.g. "email marketing" or a product name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already providing readOnlyHint=true, the description adds behavioral details: full-text and typo-tolerant matching, ordering by relevance and popularity (no paid placement), and the meaning of the premium field. This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention rate limits or pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused paragraph, front-loaded with usage guidance and key behaviors. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains result ordering, the premium flag, and suggests using get_product for details. It covers search capabilities and use cases well, though it could mention return fields or pagination. Overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (query described, limit not). The description adds context for query (typo-tolerant, full-text over names/descriptions/tags) but does not mention the limit parameter or its behavior. This partially compensates for schema gaps but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: searching for digital tools or products by need, keyword, or name. It specifies the directory (uneed.best) and search capabilities (full-text, typo-tolerant). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_product by mentioning using a result's slug for full details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('looking for a digital tool or product by need, keyword or name') and provides guidance on interpreting results (e.g., premium: true is a disclosure, not a quality signal). It references get_product for full profiles, but does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to other siblings like search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!