Trusted Vendors

Find vendors for a need

find_vendors

Read-onlyIdempotent

Ranked vendors for a buying need (e.g. "payroll for a 10-person startup in Ireland"): name, profile URL, Proven Score, band, one-line description, and whether a public or network offer exists.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "need": "<need>"
    },
    "name": "find_vendors"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`need`	Yes	What the buyer needs, in plain words.
`limit`	No	Results to return (default 10).
`stage`	No	Optional buyer stage, e.g. seed, series a, growth, enterprise. Boosts, does not filter.
`country`	No	Optional: where the buyer company is registered, as a country name or ISO code (e.g. Ireland, US, GB). Leaves out vendors whose own website says they are not available there; vendors with no availability data are kept (check available_countries). Also boosts vendors headquartered there.
`category`	No	Optional group name, e.g. "Payroll & HR". Restricts results to that group.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ranked and enumerates the returned attributes (Proven Score, band, offer presence), but says nothing about how ranking works, default result count behavior, or what happens with very broad needs.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by the returned fields. Nothing is padded, though the inline field list makes it dense and it could have been split for scannability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates what comes back, and the input schema fully documents all five parameters. The remaining gap is guidance on how this tool relates to get_vendor/compare_vendors/get_offers in a multi-step vendor workflow.

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%, with need, limit, stage, country and category all documented, including the subtle boost-vs-filter distinction for stage and the availability caveat for country. The description only reinforces the 'need' parameter through its example query and otherwise adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('Ranked vendors for a buying need') plus an example query and the exact fields returned, so the agent knows this is a discovery/ranking tool rather than a lookup. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_vendor or compare_vendors, but the plural, list-returning scope makes the distinction inferable.

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 example need ("payroll for a 10-person startup in Ireland") implicitly shows this is the entry point for open-ended buyer searches, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer compare_vendors, get_vendor, or get_offers, and no stated prerequisites or follow-up path.

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

All Trusted Vendors tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?