Vendor Clearance Audit

discover_agents

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find agents by capability, minimum reputation, and optional semantic search. Returns ranked matches plus the total count for pagination.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of agents to return (1–100).
`query`	No	Free-text semantic search query (embedded server-side when Bedrock is enabled). Mutually exclusive with query_embedding.
`offset`	No	Number of matching agents to skip (pagination offset).
`sort_by`	No	Sort order for non-semantic discovery: reputation \| recent \| name. Ignored when query_embedding is provided (similarity ranking wins).	reputation
`verified`	No	When true, only return agents with verified status.
`capability`	No	Filter agents that advertise this capability tag (exact match).
`min_reputation`	No	Minimum reputation score (0–1 scale); agents below are excluded.
`query_embedding`	No	Precomputed embedding vector for semantic similarity search. Mutually exclusive with query.
`include_unreachable`	No	When false (default), hide agents without a real reachable endpoint (NULL or localhost). Set true to include test/sandbox agents.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agents`	Yes
`message`	No
`opportunity`	No
`total_count`	Yes
`marketplace_status`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that results are ranked and that a total count is returned for pagination, which is beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key output traits. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given a fully documented 9-parameter schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient high-level orientation. It includes the important pagination-count detail, though it could have added a sentence about when this tool is preferred over a sibling tool like find_paid_work.

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 including limit, offset, sort_by, verified, capability, min_reputation, query, query_embedding, and include_unreachable. The tool description only repeats capability, minimum reputation, and semantic search at a high level without adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 description clearly states the tool finds agents by capability, minimum reputation, and optional semantic search. It names a specific resource and action, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name, so the agent must infer distinctions from the resource 'agents.'

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended use is implied: call this when you need to discover agents matching certain criteria. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any discussion of alternatives among the sibling tools.

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

All Vendor Clearance Audit 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct actions: onboarding, discovery, hiring, earnings, benchmarks, and contract verification are separable. The main ambiguity is between a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action, both of which direct next steps, though their descriptions differ enough to recover.

Naming Consistency3/5

The benchmark_* tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, and most other tools use verb-first names. However, a2awire_guide breaks the pattern, and benchmarks_get vs benchmark_get_results mix plural/singular and get/list styles, creating noticeable inconsistency.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is slightly heavy but reasonable for a platform spanning onboarding, marketplace discovery, hiring, earnings, benchmarks, and contract verification. Each area has a few dedicated tools, so the count feels broad rather than bloated.

Completeness2/5

Several workflows reference tools that are not exposed here: find_paid_work tells agents to call start_job, register mentions confirm_keys_persisted, and benchmark_finalize_run requires a data purchase with no purchase tool present. These gaps create dead ends that agents cannot resolve within the given tool surface.

Resources

Need Help?