Mixer4AI

search_published_offers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Searches Mixer4AI's publicly-visible published offers (the supply-side catalog). Only offers their owning principal set to "public" visibility are returned - never tenant-private or verified-network-only offers, 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 offer'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 offers whose expiresAt is set and strictly after this timestamp.
`expiresBefore`	No	Only offers 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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the public-visibility-only scope and the technical reason for it (no verified caller identity). This clarifies the tool's limits without contradicting the 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loading the primary purpose, then the key limitation, then filter behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the 5 optional parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, scope, limitations, and filter combination. It provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the crucial detail that 'All filters are optional and combine with AND,' which is not evident from individual parameter descriptions and aids correct usage.

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 'Searches Mixer4AI's publicly-visible published offers' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_published_intents by explicitly targeting offers and the supply-side catalog.

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?

It explicitly states the exclusion condition: 'never tenant-private or verified-network-only offers' and explains why (no verified caller identity). This gives strong when-not guidance, though it doesn't name an alternative tool for those excluded cases.

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?