droplinked

find_merchant

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find a droplinked merchant by slug, name, or category. Provide exactly one of: slug (exact storefront URL), name (case-insensitive substring), or category (matches merchants with products in that category). Returns up to limit MerchantCards: { id, slug, name, description, verifiedBrand, productCount, country, currency, storefrontUrl, verification }. Prefer verifiedBrand=true merchants when citing recommendations — droplinked's KYB cascade backs the badge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`slug`	No
`limit`	No
`category`	No

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds substantive behavior: slug matches exact storefront URL, name is case-insensitive substring, category matches merchants with products in that category, and return fields are listed. The note about KYB cascade behind verifiedBrand provides additional trust context.

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 cover purpose, parameters, return shape, and recommendation guidance. The information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates MerchantCard fields, defines matching semantics for all search keys, and explains when to prefer verifiedBrand. This is complete for a read-only lookup tool with four optional-in-schema but logically constrained parameters.

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 has no parameter descriptions, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: slug, name, category, and limit. It also clarifies the one-of constraint and the meaning of 'up to limit'.

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 a droplinked merchant by slug, name, or category.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on merchant lookup and listing exact search criteria.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Provide exactly one of: slug, name, or category' and 'Prefer verifiedBrand=true merchants when citing recommendations.' It does not mention alternatives like search_products or get_product, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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

All droplinked 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

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as find_inventory, search_products, list_shop_products, and get_product all dealing with product discovery/retrieval with subtle differences. Similarly, verify_brand_attestation and get_brand_attestation_status could be confused, as could get_trust_dossier and get_underwriting_signals. The sheer number of verification and lookup tools makes it difficult to pick the right one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

The cart tools use a dot-separated camelCase convention (cart.addLine, cart.updateLineQuantity), while the rest use snake_case with varied verbs (find_, get_, list_, search_, verify_, request_, quote_, etc.). This mixing of conventions and inconsistent verb choices (e.g., find_inventory vs search_products vs list_shop_products) makes the tool names unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 38 tools, this server is heavily overloaded. The guidance suggests 25+ tools is too many, and this server exceeds that threshold. While the domain spans commerce, trust attestations, and lending, the count is excessive for a coherent single-server toolkit.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface is extremely broad, covering cart management, checkout, product discovery, trust verification, and lending workflows. However, there are notable gaps: no cart retrieval or order history, no revoke/update for attestations, and some key lending tools (quote_credit_terms, report_repayment) are scaffolded but not yet functional, creating dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?