Alternativas IA

Submit a new AI tool

submit_tool

Submit a new AI tool to Alternativas IA 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

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, the description adds meaningful behavior: the submission creates an unpublished draft, the maker must claim it via a returned claimUrl, and there is a global limit of 5 submissions per hour. This is useful operational context beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: what the tool does, when it is allowed, and which optional params matter. There is no redundant or vague 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?

The description covers the full workflow—draft creation, claim process, and rate limiting—and the input schema covers parameter details. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to restate return values, but it still clearly identifies the key output field claimUrl.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters already carry clear meaning. The description adds value by telling agents to provide tagline, problemSolved, logoUrl, and imageUrls whenever possible because they make listings look like real product pages instead of stubs.

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 and resource: 'Submit a new AI tool to Alternativas IA on behalf of its maker.' It also distinguishes this from read/list/sibling tools by explaining that it creates a draft listing and returns a claimUrl, not a public listing.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Call this only when a user explicitly wants to list their own tool.' It also provides a clear exclusion: never submit a tool on someone else's behalf without their email, which prevents common misuse.

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

All Alternativas IA 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

A4.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: search returns catalog matches, get_tool returns detailed listing, list_alternatives finds competitors, submit_tool creates a draft, list_offers describes purchasable add-ons, and create_checkout handles the purchase step. No two tools appear to overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_, get_, list_, list_, search_, submit_. Verbs are specific and nouns clearly identify the object, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a directory server with discovery, submission, and monetization features. Each tool covers a meaningful operation, with no redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core workflows: finding tools, viewing full details, seeing alternatives, submitting a listing, and purchasing paid add-ons. Minor gaps remain around listing management—there is no update or delete operation for submitted tools—but these are plausibly handled outside the MCP or by the human claiming the listing.

Resources

Need Help?