Gemalli B2B Trade

Search products

search_products

Search the published product catalogue. Filters: free-text (q, FTS-backed), category / manufacturer slugs, ISO-2 country, moqMax, priceMax. Returns localised product cards.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Free-text search across name + description (FTS via migration 0016 with ILIKE fallback).
`limit`	No	Max results (1–50). Defaults to 12.
`locale`	No	Preferred locale for returned text.
`moqMax`	No	Max minimum-order-quantity threshold (inclusive).
`offset`	No	Pagination offset.
`country`	No	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g. "UA").
`category`	No	Category slug filter (categories.slug).
`priceMax`	No	Max `price_from` threshold (inclusive).
`manufacturer`	No	Manufacturer slug filter (manufacturers.slug).

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that only published products are searched, that results are localized, and that FTS is involved. It does not mention sorting, pagination behavior, or result-count defaults, though these are partially covered by schema parameter descriptions.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the filter list is compact and scannable. Every clause adds useful information.

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?

Given 9 optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description provides a sufficient high-level overview and return shape ('localised product cards'). The main gap is explicit usage routing versus sibling tools, which is minor for actually invoking the tool correctly.

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's filter list largely mirrors schema parameter names and adds only modest extra context (e.g., q is FTS-backed, country is ISO-2, slugs for category/manufacturer). It does not substantially enrich semantics beyond 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('published product catalogue'), and enumerates the filter dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product (single product lookup) and list_categories (taxonomy listing).

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?

The description implies usage: search and filter the catalogue. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_product, list_manufacturers, or other siblings, nor does it give when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer the tool's role from sibling names.

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

All Gemalli B2B Trade 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action: product/manufacturer retrieval, catalog search, category listing, HS classification, dual-use screening, sanctions screening, and partnership inquiry. The compliance checks are related but clearly separated by HS-code vs. name-based screening, so an agent is unlikely to pick the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a predictable verb_noun snake_case pattern: check_, get_, list_, search_, lookup_. partnership_inquiry is the only clear deviation, using a noun phrase instead of a verb-led name, but the overall convention is still easy to infer.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is a well-scoped size for a public B2B trade and compliance server. Each tool covers a distinct step in the catalog-discovery or pre-flight workflow, with no redundant or decorative entries.

Completeness4/5

The core workflows are covered: category browsing, product search, manufacturer retrieval, HS classification, dual-use and sanctions screening, and partnership outreach. A minor gap is the lack of direct manufacturer text/country search, which is explicitly deferred to separate Wave 3b auth tools; agents can still discover manufacturers indirectly through product search.

Resources

Need Help?