Skip to main content
Glama

CNC Compass

Search CNC Compass suppliers

search_suppliers
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search published CNC Compass supplier records with a natural-language sourcing brief.

    Returns the normalized brief, the fields the brief did not state, matched suppliers with
    match reasons and source evidence, the filters applied with record counts, and paging
    fields (offset, limit, has_more). A brief with no recognisable process, material, finish,
    or location returns no records and a follow-up question instead of the whole index.
    `query` is 3 to 5000 characters, `limit` 1 to 20, `offset` 0 to 1000. When you already
    know the buyer's material, process, finish, or location, pass them as the optional
    fields: each overrides the parsed value (for example material="aluminum 6061",
    process="CNC turning", finish="anodizing", location="Dongguan"); a value the index cannot
    match is ignored and listed in `retrieval.ignored_fields`.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
finishNo
offsetNo
processNo
locationNo
materialNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
briefYes
limitNo
answerYes
offsetNo
filtersNo
missingNo
has_moreNo
retrievalNo
suppliersNo
index_recordsNo
total_recordsNo
follow_up_questionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the exact fallback when no process/material/finish/location is recognized (no records + follow-up question instead of the whole index), the override precedence of optional fields over parsed values, and the ignored_fields reporting. This is rich, non-obvious disclosure that helps the agent anticipate outcomes.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose and returns, then constraints, then override semantics, and every sentence carries information. It is somewhat dense with parenthetical examples and a stray leading indentation, but nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return fields is partly redundant, but the description's coverage of the no-match fallback, override precedence, and paging fields makes the tool fully callable and predictable. It is complete for a search tool; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does: query length 3-5000, limit 1-20, offset 0-1000, and the semantics of the optional material/process/finish/location fields with concrete examples and the override/ignored-value rule. Every one of the 7 parameters gets meaning that the bare schema does not provide.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search published CNC Compass supplier records') and clarifies the input modality ('natural-language sourcing brief'), which clearly separates it from a single-record lookup like get_supplier. It does not explicitly name or contrast the siblings (get_supplier, list_facets), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: the agent can infer this is the discovery/query tool and that get_supplier is the detail lookup, but the description never says when to choose this versus the siblings. The edge-case guidance (empty brief returns no records plus a follow-up question) is useful but is behavioral, not routing.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources