FindAgent

findagent_create_org

Create a FindAgent organization (a B2B workspace) — you become its owner. Provide a name and optionally a slug (3–40 chars, lowercase letters/digits/hyphens; derived from the name if omitted). Then invite teammates with findagent_invite_member. SLUG IS PERMANENT: the first call WITHOUT confirm_slug returns the exact org slug + a notice that its URL (/organizations/) can never change; re-call with confirm_slug set to that exact slug to acknowledge and create it (nothing is created until you confirm).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The organization name (1–120 chars).
`slug`	No	Optional URL slug (3–40 chars, kebab-case).
`confirm_slug`	No	Your acknowledgement that the org's URL slug is PERMANENT. Must exactly match the resolved slug. Call without it first to see the exact slug + permanence notice, then re-call with confirm_slug set to that slug to create.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`instructions`	No
`organization`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description is unusually transparent about side effects and sequencing: the user becomes owner, the slug is permanent, the URL can never change, nothing is created until confirm_slug is provided, and the first call only returns the exact slug and a notice. This goes well beyond the minimal readOnlyHint=false annotation and prepares the agent for the two-call creation pattern.

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 information-dense but not bloated. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers the required parameters, the follow-up invite action, and the nuanced permanent-slug confirmation flow. Each sentence earns its place, and the prominent 'SLUG IS PERMANENT' warning prevents a consequential mistake.

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?

For a creation tool with a nontrivial confirmation workflow, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to pass, what the first call returns, what the second call must contain, the permanent-URL consequence, and the next recommended tool (invite_member). The output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so no critical context is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it explains that slug is derived from name when omitted and clarifies the exact role of confirm_slug in the two-step flow. While the schema already documents confirm_slug well, the description adds the derived-slug behavior and reinforces the required acknowledgement semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a FindAgent organization (a B2B workspace) — you become its owner.' It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like get_org, list_orgs, delete_draft, and invite_member by focusing on creation, ownership, and the subsequent invite step. The scope and intent are unambiguous.

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 clear in-flow guidance: create the org, then invite teammates with findagent_invite_member, and explicitly instructs the caller to first call without confirm_slug and then re-call with the exact slug. It does not explicitly describe when-not-to-use alternatives such as findagent_check_slug, but the workflow is clear enough to prevent misuse.

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

All FindAgent 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a clearly scoped resource+action combination, and the versioning variants (bump_version vs repull vs reintrospect_mcp) are explicitly disambiguated by agent kind. Even with 52 tools, the descriptions make each purpose distinct enough to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools follow the findagent_<verb>_<object> snake_case pattern, and families share predictable verbs like list, create, delete, edit, and submit. Minor exceptions such as findagent_preflight, findagent_whoami, and findagent_earnings keep it from perfect consistency.

Tool Count2/5

At 52 tools, this far exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a coherent MCP surface. The count may reflect a broad platform, but as a single toolset it is heavy and likely to strain agent selection and context.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers publishing, versioning, knowledge bases, org management, GitHub import, purchases, and the demand board in impressive depth. However, there are notable dead ends: no unpublish/delete for a live agent, no request-fulfillment/linking action, and no org deletion or KB document update.

Resources

Need Help?