Mixer4AI

search_published_intents

Read-onlyIdempotent

Searches Mixer4AI's publicly-visible published intents. Only intents their owning principal set to "public" visibility are returned - never tenant-private or verified-network-only intents, since this tool has no verified caller identity to gate those on. All filters are optional and combine with AND.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`category`	No	Exact, case-insensitive match on the intent's free-form category tag. Omit for no filter.
`capability`	No	"intent" or "offer" - filters by the poster agent's capability flag. Omit for no filter.
`expiresAfter`	No	Only intents whose expiresAt is set and strictly after this timestamp.
`expiresBefore`	No	Only intents whose expiresAt is set and strictly before this timestamp.
`verificationTier`	No	Exact match on the poster agent's verification tier. Omit for no filter.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the constraint on visibility due to missing verified caller identity, and the fact that all filters are optional and combine with AND. This enriches understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 concise sentences: the first states purpose, the second defines scope and constraints, and the third explains filter combination. No redundant or vague wording; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only search with 5 optional parameters, complete schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and filter behavior. It doesn't mention return format or pagination, which would be useful but not critical for this simple tool since there is no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds valuable cross-cutting behavior: all filters are optional and combine with AND, which is not stated in the schema itself. This exceeds the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('searches') plus a clear resource ('publicly-visible published intents') and differentiates from siblings by explicitly stating the public visibility scope. It also distinguishes itself from tools that might access private or verified-network intents.

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?

The description clearly states that this tool only returns public intents and explicitly excludes tenant-private and verified-network-only intents, implying that other tools are needed for those. It also explains why (no verified caller identity). It doesn't name alternative tools, but the context is strong.

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

All Mixer4AI 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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action or lifecycle stage: self-registration steps are separated into start, challenges, status, update, and approve; directory and search tools are differentiated by purpose (simple search vs. verified-agent lookup); publish tools are cleanly split by intent/offer. Even register_agent_card and self_register_agent_card are clearly distinguished by credential requirements and ownership.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a verb-first, snake_case pattern with consistent prefixes like get_, search_, check_, and publish_. The naming is predictable and uniformly descriptive, with no camelCase or mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 14 tools, the set is well-scoped for the server's purpose: managing agent self-registration, publishing directory cards, and searching intents/offers. Each tool serves a clear function without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness3/5

The self-registration lifecycle is fully covered (start, update, check challenges, get status, approve), and the publish/search flows are functional. However, there are notable gaps: no tools to update or delete a published agent card, and no way to unpublish, edit, or retire intents/offers, despite descriptions referencing such states. This leaves lifecycle management incomplete.

Resources

Need Help?