FindAgent

findagent_list_requests

Read-only

Read the PUBLIC FindAgent Agent Request Board — the community demand board of "I want an agent that does X" requests buyers have posted (the same board the website /requests page shows). Returns each request's title, body, status (open|planned|fulfilled|declined|duplicate), upvote count, requester handle, and the slug of a fulfilling agent when one is linked. A creator can build an agent that fulfils an OPEN request. Pass mine:true to list ONLY YOUR OWN requests instead (includes ones you withdrew / an admin removed, each flagged — withdraw a still-live one with findagent_withdraw_request). Filters: status, sort (top by upvotes | new). PAGINATED via offset. READ-ONLY.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mine`	No	When true, return ONLY the connected account's own requests (author-scoped, incl. withdrawn/removed rows) instead of the public board. Ignores status.
`sort`	No	Sort by upvote count (top) or recency (new). Default top.
`limit`	No	Optional page size (default 30, max 100).
`offset`	No	Optional pagination offset (default 0).
`status`	No	Optional status filter for the public board (default: all live requests). Ignored when mine:true.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`usage`	No
`has_more`	No
`requests`	No
`next_offset`	No

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'READ-ONLY.' It adds meaningful behavioral detail: mine:true includes withdrawn/removed rows that are flagged, status is ignored in mine:true mode, and the board matches the website /requests page. This goes well beyond structured fields.

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 dense but every sentence carries information: resource, return fields, workflow, mine variant, filters, pagination, and read-only status. It is front-loaded with the most important scoping information and contains no filler.

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 the output schema exists, the description fully covers what the tool returns and all key behaviors. It explains the public vs. mine distinction, filtering options, pagination, and the relation to withdrawal. Nothing an agent needs to use it correctly seems 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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the mine:true behavior (including withdrawn/removed rows) and tying pagination to offset. Some details duplicate schema text, but the additional context earns a 4.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('PUBLIC FindAgent Agent Request Board'), and explains the board's nature with an example. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying the board scope and contrasting public vs. mine view.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly describes when to use the public board vs. mine:true, and even points to findagent_withdraw_request for a related action. The context for filtering, sorting, and pagination is directly actionable without requiring inference.

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?