mcp

sponsor_search

Search sponsors by name, description, industry tags, or filters. Returns compact results (id, name, tagline = what the brand sells in a few words, website, niches, industryTags, country, operations, medianSubscribers). Use sponsor_get for full detail on a specific sponsor.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sponsor_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	Page number for pagination
`sort`	No	Sort field	updatedAt
`limit`	No	Results per page (max 20)
`order`	No	Sort order	desc
`niches`	No	Filter by niche IDs
`search`	No	Search query (name or description)
`status`	No	Filter by sponsor status
`category`	No	Filter by industry tag category
`language`	No	Filter by language (e.g., EN, FR)
`maxMedianSubscribers`	No	Maximum median subscribers
`minMedianSubscribers`	No	Minimum median subscribers of YouTubers they sponsor

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 9, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape ('compact results' with a named field list) and that the tool is a read-style search, but says nothing about pagination limits beyond the schema, ordering behavior, result totals, or auth requirements.

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 tight sentences: the capability statement is front-loaded, and the second sentence covers both return content and the alternative tool. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and clarifying the ambiguous 'tagline'. For an 11-parameter paginated search, it leaves only minor gaps such as total-result/pagination reporting expectations and matching semantics for the free-text query.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of name/description/industry tags loosely maps to search and category, but adds no syntax, format, or matching-semantics detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search sponsors') and enumerates the searchable facets (name, description, industry tags, filters). It also distinguishes itself from the detail sibling by noting that sponsor_get exists for full records.

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?

Gives one explicit routing rule: use sponsor_get for full detail on a specific sponsor, which frames this as the discovery/browse step. It does not explain when to prefer the other siblings (sponsor_mostActive, sponsor_similar, sponsor_stats), so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

All mcp 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?