Skip to main content
Glama

agentery

by com.agentery

rank_providers_for_workflow

PARTNER-ONLY (Bearer key required). Given a business context and its workflow steps, return ranked provider candidates for EACH step — structured, scored (match_score 0-100) matches with match_reasons and cautions. Built for app builders (e.g. Builtery) assembling automations. Reads each provider's analysed site profile; never invents capabilities; returns 'unclear' where evidence is missing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limit_per_stepNoMax candidates per step (1-25, default 8)
workflow_stepsYesEach: step_id, step_name, step_description, inputs[], desired_outputs[], required_integrations[], human_approval_preference (always|sometimes|not_needed|unknown)
business_contextNocompany_description, industry, region, existing_tools[], automation_posture (cautious|balanced|agent_native), regulated_data (none|personal|health|financial|legal|children|unknown)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses the Bearer-key requirement, that it reads analysed site profiles, never invents capabilities, and returns 'unclear' when evidence is missing. This is a high level of transparency.

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?

Three sentences, first sentence is an imperative statement of behavior, second gives audience, third gives data-safety guarantee. 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?

For a moderate-complexity tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, auth, return format, and behavioral constraints. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a general mapping of business context and workflow steps to inputs, but no additional details beyond schema descriptions. Thus a 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool ranks provider candidates for each workflow step, with specific deliverables (match_score, match_reasons, cautions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_providers and compare_providers.

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 states it is built for app builders assembling automations, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All agentery toolsInspect
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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few pairs could cause confusion: get_provider vs get_provider_profile overlap in scope (one is a card, the other a full profile), and research_capability explicitly bundles find_niche, niche_report, price_benchmark, and search_providers, creating layered redundancy. However, the detailed descriptions clearly differentiate the entry-point tools from the lower-level ones.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, get_, search_, suggest_, etc.), but a few tools use bare noun phrases (demand_signals, market_gaps, niche_report, price_benchmark) rather than imperative or get_ prefixes. This is a minor inconsistency that doesn't harm readability.

Tool Count4/5

At 19 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct, justified function within the market-intelligence and provider-directory domain. The count feels appropriate for the breadth of features (search, research, comparison, pricing, indexes, benchmarks, and feedback).

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is very comprehensive: full CRUD for custom benchmarks, multiple discovery paths (search, research, gaps, demand signals), pricing and index tools, profile/detail tools, comparison and alternatives, plus outcome reporting. There are no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for the stated purpose.

Resources