Skip to main content
Glama

agentery

by com.agentery
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

search_providers

Find candidates for a described task — example: 'supplier invoice reconciliation'. Check the strongest matches with get_provider_profile before recommending them, then use compare_providers for the shortlist. Results may include different delivery types (provider / MCP server / API / platform) and products without a numeric price: inspect the returned priced, observed_price and provider_type fields before treating a result as a recommendation. Set require_public_price to keep only products with an observed public price (then every returned result has one; if nothing priced is close you get an honest thin_coverage/no_match answer with the unpriced candidates labelled, never padding). max_monthly_usd drops products whose observed lowest paid tier exceeds it; sort price_asc lists cheapest observed price first. Each result carries the website URL (and pricing page URL when observed); get_provider_profile has the full evidence, plans and how_to_connect. Accepts query (aliases: q, text). research_capability is the optional combined route (market + pricing context + shortlist in one call).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNomatch (default) or price_asc (cheapest observed price first; unpriced providers last)
limitNoMax results (1-50, default 20)
queryYesREQUIRED. Free-text description of the product job you are buying, e.g. 'customer support provider with Zendesk integration' or 'supplier invoice reconciliation'. Not for questions about Agentery itself (upvotes, endpoints): those return status unsupported_request.
billingNoOnly providers with one of these observed billing models, e.g. ["free","freemium","subscription","usage"]
filtersNoOptional: industry_fit[], integrations_available[], entity_type[] (agent|tool|infrastructure|service|marketplace|content-community), autonomy_level[] (assistant|workflow automation|agentic|infrastructure), minimum_evidence_quality (low|medium|high)
provider_typeNoFilter to one provider type — the audited classification dimension (same as the website type chips and AEPI facets); result labels always match this filter. Omit for all types.
max_monthly_usdNoDrop providers whose observed lowest paid tier exceeds this (USD/month). Providers with no observed public price still pass unless require_public_price is true.
require_public_priceNoOnly return providers with an observed public price (default false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / provider_type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "provider",
-  "mcp",
-  "api",
-  "platform",
-  "infrastructure"
-]New value: +[
+  "agent",
+  "mcp",
+  "api",
+  "platform",
+  "infrastructure"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"Free-text capability query, e.g. 'customer support provider with Zendesk integration'"New value: +"REQUIRED. Free-text description of the product job you are buying, e.g. 'customer support provider with Zendesk integration' or 'supplier invoice reconciliation'. Not for questions about Agentery itself (upvotes, endpoints): those return status unsupported_request."
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "query"
+]
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / provider_type
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filter to one provider type — the audited classification dimension (same as the website type chips and AEPI facets); result labels always match this filter. Omit for all types.",
+  "enum": [
+    "provider",
+    "mcp",
+    "api",
+    "platform",
+    "infrastructure"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"Free-text capability query, e.g. 'customer support agent with Zendesk integration'"New value: +"Free-text capability query, e.g. 'customer support provider with Zendesk integration'"
    • changedInput schema / properties / require_public_price / description
      Previous value: -"Only return agents with an observed public price (default false)"New value: +"Only return providers with an observed public price (default false)"
  5. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / billing / description
      Previous value: -"Only agents with one of these observed billing models, e.g. [\"free\",\"freemium\",\"subscription\",\"usage\"]"New value: +"Only providers with one of these observed billing models, e.g. [\"free\",\"freemium\",\"subscription\",\"usage\"]"
    • changedInput schema / properties / max_monthly_usd / description
      Previous value: -"Drop agents whose observed lowest paid tier exceeds this (USD/month). Agents with no observed public price still pass unless require_public_price is true."New value: +"Drop providers whose observed lowest paid tier exceeds this (USD/month). Providers with no observed public price still pass unless require_public_price is true."
    • changedInput schema / properties / sort / description
      Previous value: -"match (default) or price_asc (cheapest observed price first; unpriced agents last)"New value: +"match (default) or price_asc (cheapest observed price first; unpriced providers last)"
  6. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses mixed delivery types, the possibility of unpriced products, the need to inspect priced/observed_price/provider_type before treating results as recommendations, the 'never padding' no_match behavior, and the effect of require_public_price and max_monthly_usd.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but front-loaded with purpose and usage, then behavior. Most sentences add useful guidance, though some details repeat schema descriptions and the paragraph style could be tightened.

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 tool's complexity (8 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is unusually complete: it explains return-field semantics, honest failure modes, filtering behavior, and the route to richer evidence via get_provider_profile.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a few extras like query aliases (q, text) and reinforces spending filters, but most parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find candidates for a described task') and gives a concrete example. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming get_provider_profile, compare_providers, and research_capability, so an agent can tell this is the candidate-discovery step.

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?

It explicitly states the workflow: use search_providers to find candidates, check strongest matches with get_provider_profile before recommending, then use compare_providers for shortlisting. It also mentions research_capability as an optional combined route, giving clear when-to-use guidance against alternatives.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources