SaaS Browser
Server Details
Search 400k+ SaaS and software companies by category, technology, country, pricing, and more.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.7/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: finding alternatives, searching categories, searching SaaS companies, and searching technologies. No two tools overlap in function, making it easy for an agent to select the correct one.
All tools follow a consistent 'SearchXTool' pattern where X is the target entity (Alternatives, Categories, Saas, Technologies). This predictable naming aids agent understanding.
Four tools is well-scoped for a SaaS browsing database. Each tool serves a distinct search need without unnecessary bloat, and the count feels complete for the domain.
The set covers the main search functionalities: companies, categories, alternatives, and technologies. A potential minor gap is the lack of a tool to retrieve detailed information for a single company, but the search results include profile URLs, so agents can fetch details externally.
Available Tools
4 toolsSearchAlternativesToolBInspect
Find alternative/competing SaaS or software products for a given website host. Returns up to 25 published alternatives with profile URLs, descriptions, and names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | The website host to find alternatives for (e.g. "slack.com", "trello.com") |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no alternatives are found. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to provide sufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second specifies the output format. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers input (host) and output (up to 25 alternatives with URLs, descriptions, names). However, it does not mention potential error conditions or missing results, which would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the single parameter 'host' with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Find alternative/competing SaaS or software products for a given website host', specifying both the verb and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like SearchCategoriesTool and SearchSaasTool by focusing specifically on finding alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool references, which is a significant gap for a tool with multiple related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
SearchCategoriesToolAInspect
Search SaaS Browser categories by name or keyword. Returns matching category IDs for use with the SearchSaasTool category_ids filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool returns IDs and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as destructive actions, permissions, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with essential information. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete: it explains what it does, what it returns, and how to use the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'q' described as 'Search query'. The description adds 'by name or keyword', which is marginally more specific but adds little beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool searches SaaS Browser categories by name or keyword and returns category IDs for use with SearchSaasTool. It distinguishes from sibling tools like SearchAlternativesTool, SearchSaasTool, and SearchTechnologiesTool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description explicitly mentions the output is for use with SearchSaasTool's category_ids filter, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not discuss when not to use it or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
SearchSaasToolBInspect
Search the SaaS Browser database of 400k+ SaaS companies. Filter by category, technology, country, pricing, traffic, employees, age, and more. Returns up to 25 results with profile URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search query | |
| ads_max | No | Max ads count | |
| ads_min | No | Min ads count | |
| sort_by | No | Sort: domain_rank, employees, age, traffic, traffic_growth, ad_keywords, ad_keyword_growth, ads, ads_growth, referring_domains, referring_domains_growth, commission_percentage, published_at, sitemap_page_count | |
| uses_ai | No | "true" or "false" | |
| countries | No | Pipe-separated 2-letter ISO codes. Use saas://countries for valid codes. | |
| price_low | No | Minimum monthly price | |
| traff_max | No | Max monthly traffic | |
| traff_min | No | Min monthly traffic | |
| price_high | No | Maximum monthly price | |
| category_ids | No | Pipe-separated category IDs. Use saas://categories for valid IDs. | |
| age_years_max | No | Max company age in years | |
| age_years_min | No | Min company age in years | |
| employees_gte | No | Min employee count | |
| employees_lte | No | Max employee count | |
| growth_models | No | Pipe-separated: product_led, sales_led, both | |
| consumer_types | No | Pipe-separated: personal, business, both | |
| has_api_access | No | "true" or "false" | |
| has_bug_bounty | No | "true" or "false" | |
| sort_direction | No | "asc" or "desc" | |
| technology_ids | No | Pipe-separated technology UUIDs. Use saas://technologies for valid IDs. | |
| ad_keywords_max | No | Max ad keywords | |
| ad_keywords_min | No | Min ad keywords | |
| domain_rank_gte | No | Min Serpstat domain rank | |
| domain_rank_lte | No | Max Serpstat domain rank | |
| published_at_to | No | Published before (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| technology_logic | No | "all" (AND) or "any" (OR) | |
| published_at_from | No | Published after (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| bug_bounty_platform | No | Pipe-separated: hackerone, bugcrowd, intigriti, yeswehack, immunefi, synack, cobalt, self_hosted | |
| cookie_duration_max | No | Max affiliate cookie days | |
| cookie_duration_min | No | Min affiliate cookie days | |
| price_currency_code | No | Pipe-separated 3-letter codes | |
| has_chrome_extension | No | "true" or "false" | |
| bug_bounty_payout_max | No | Max bug bounty payout (USD) | |
| bug_bounty_payout_min | No | Min bug bounty payout (USD) | |
| has_affiliate_program | No | "true" or "false" | |
| has_firefox_extension | No | "true" or "false" | |
| referring_domains_max | No | Max referring domains | |
| referring_domains_min | No | Min referring domains | |
| monthly_change_ads_max | No | Max ads change % | |
| monthly_change_ads_min | No | Min ads change % | |
| sitemap_page_count_max | No | Max sitemap pages | |
| sitemap_page_count_min | No | Min sitemap pages | |
| monthly_change_traff_max | No | Max traffic change % | |
| monthly_change_traff_min | No | Min traffic change % | |
| affiliate_commission_type | No | Pipe-separated: one_time, recurring | |
| commission_percentage_max | No | Max affiliate commission % | |
| commission_percentage_min | No | Min affiliate commission % | |
| referring_domains_growth_max | No | Max referring domains change % | |
| referring_domains_growth_min | No | Min referring domains change % | |
| monthly_change_ad_keywords_max | No | Max ad keywords change % | |
| monthly_change_ad_keywords_min | No | Min ad keywords change % |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions a result limit of 25 and profile URLs, but lacks details on rate limiting, idempotency, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for a read tool with 52 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence spanning key capabilities and constraints. It is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly improved by briefly noting the sibling tools for specific lookups.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count (52) and no output schema, the description covers the primary function and result limit but omits behavior for edge cases (e.g., empty results, filter incompatibility, pagination). It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 lists broad filter categories (category, technology, etc.), adding context beyond parameter names. However, it does not explain how filters combine or provide examples for complex fields like pipe-separated values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches the SaaS Browser database of 400k+ companies with many filters, and contrasts with sibling tools that focus on lookups of specific entities (categories, technologies, alternatives).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (SearchAlternativesTool, SearchCategoriesTool, SearchTechnologiesTool). The description implies usage as a general search but does not exclude cases where sibling tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
SearchTechnologiesToolAInspect
Search SaaS Browser technologies by name or category. Returns matching technology IDs for use with the SearchSaasTool technology_ids filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the search is by name or category and returns IDs, but lacks details on search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, partial matching). For a simple search tool, this is adequate but could be more informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action and outcome, no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one string param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete, covering purpose and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'q' described as 'Search query'. The description adds value by specifying that the search is by name or category and that the output is technology IDs, going beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'SaaS Browser technologies', and the output 'matching technology IDs'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the output's use with SearchSaasTool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that the tool returns technology IDs for use with SearchSaasTool, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!