KI Alternativen

Submit a new AI tool

submit_tool

Submit a new AI tool to KI Alternativen 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

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses side effects: creates a draft (not public), returns a claimUrl that the maker must visit to claim/publish, and mentions rate limiting. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint false, etc.).

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 well-structured: starts with the primary purpose, then explains the draft/claim behavior, usage condition, rate limit, and optional field advice. Each sentence adds meaningful information without fluff.

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?

Covers all key aspects: creation behavior, claim process, rate limit, and parameter recommendations. The presence of an output schema means return value details need not be explained, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

While the schema already has descriptions for all parameters, the description adds actionable guidance on which optional fields (tagline, problemSolved, logoUrl, imageUrls) should be supplied to improve the listing, going beyond mere schema details.

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 clearly states the tool submits a new AI tool, creates a draft listing, and returns a claimUrl. It is distinct from sibling tools like search, checkout, or listing retrieval.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this only when a user explicitly wants to list their own tool' and a clear prohibition ('never to submit a tool on someone else's behalf without their email'). Also mentions a global rate limit of 5/hour.

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

All KI Alternativen 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 has a clearly distinct responsibility: search/fetch listing details, discover alternatives, submit a new tool, list paid add-ons, and create a checkout. Though list_offers and create_checkout are related, they serve sequential, non-overlapping steps with no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_checkout, get_tool, list_alternatives, list_offers, search_tools, submit_tool. The verbs are descriptive and readable, and there are no mixed casing or naming style variations.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a directory/discovery server: search, detail, alternatives, submission, offers, and payment initiation. Each tool earns its place and the count feels neither thin nor overwhelming.

Completeness5/5

The server covers the core lifecycle: discovering tools (search_tools, get_tool, list_alternatives), adding new ones (submit_tool), and monetizing via add-ons (list_offers, create_checkout). No obvious dead-end or missing operation is apparent for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?