AI Alt Finder

Submit a new AI tool

submit_tool

Submit a new AI tool to AI Alt Finder on behalf of its maker. Creates a draft listing (not yet public) and returns a claimUrl the maker must visit to sign up and claim/publish it. Call this only when a user explicitly wants to list their own tool — never to submit a tool on someone else's behalf without their email. Rate-limited globally to 5 submissions per hour. Supply tagline, problemSolved, logoUrl and imageUrls whenever you can: they are what make the published listing look like a real product page rather than a stub.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The tool's https homepage URL.
`name`	Yes	The tool's name.
`email`	Yes	The maker's email — used to claim the listing on signup.
`logoUrl`	No	https URL of the tool's logo. We copy it to our own storage — we never hotlink the maker's host.
`tagline`	No	One line shown on every card (max 60 chars). Supply it — without one we fall back to a truncated description.
`xHandle`	No	X/Twitter handle, without the @.
`category`	Yes	Category slug, e.g. 'agents', 'writing', 'coding', 'design', 'marketing', 'productivity', 'video', 'analytics'.
`imageUrls`	No	Up to 5 https screenshot URLs, best first. Copied to our own storage. Without any, the listing shows a generated placeholder card instead of a real screenshot.
`description`	Yes	A description of the tool (40-1000 chars).
`problemSolved`	No	What problem the tool solves, in the maker's words (max 160 chars). Rendered as its own block on the listing page.
`xHandleIsFounder`	No	True when the handle is the founder's personal account rather than the product's.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes
`error`	No
`claimUrl`	No	Where the maker signs up to claim the DRAFT. Present only when ok is true.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With annotations being sparse (all false), the description adds meaningful context: it creates a non-public draft, returns a claimUrl, is globally rate-limited, and media fields are copied to storage rather than hotlinked. It does not cover failure/error behavior or rejection cases, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed well.

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 compact and front-loads the essential purpose, then layers the usage constraint, rate limit, and optional-field advice. There is no filler or repeated schema content.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage constraints, rate limiting, important side effects (draft vs public, claimUrl, storage copying), and guidance on optional parameters. Combined with the detailed schema and sibling list, it gives an agent everything needed to decide when and how to call it.

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?

The input schema already covers all 11 parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful guidance on why certain parameters matter (tagline, problemSolved, logoUrl, imageUrls improve listing quality) and clarifies the claimUrl flow involving the email. That extra guidance distinguishes it from a schema-only definition.

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+resource ('Submit a new AI tool to AI with maker on behalf of the maker'), explains it creates a draft and returns a claimUrl, and differentiates from siblings by emphasizing this is for listing one's own tool, not for generic search/get/list operations.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use it (only when the user wants to list their own tool) and what not to do (never submit on someone else's behalf without their email). It also provides rate-limit context and practical advice on which optional fields to supply. This is strong usage guidance beyond just restating the tool's purpose.

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

All AI Alt Finder 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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: searching, fetching details, listing alternatives, listing offers, creating purchases, and submitting new tools. No two tools overlap in purpose, making selection unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_checkout, get_tool, list_alternatives, list_offers, search_tools, submit_tool). The convention is predictable and uniform.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of discovering and submitting AI tools plus handling add-on purchases. Every tool has a clear role, and none are redundant.

Completeness4/5

The server covers core workflows: search, detail retrieval, alternative discovery, submission, offer listing, and checkout creation. Minor gaps exist (no update/delete for listings), but these are likely outsourced to the maker's claim flow.

Resources

Need Help?