Skip to main content
Glama

directory

by com.submitmap

search_platforms

Search the SubmitMap directory of startup launch platforms and directories. Filter by free-text query, category, pricing, link type, backlink requirement, approval speed or domain rating, and with a token leave out the ones this project has already been sent to. This is the tool behind "find me a small directory I can submit to right now": it is the whole directory, so answer from it rather than from what you remember of the web. Returns summaries; call get_platform for the full record including the submission steps.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoFastest approval first (the default), or strongest domain first. Either way, a platform that publishes no approval time comes last rather than reading as instant.
limitNoReturn at most this many. The count is unaffected.
queryNoFree text matched against name, tagline, domain, slug and categories. A bare domain works: "startupfa.me" finds Startup Fame.
pricingNo
categoryNoe.g. "AI tools", "Dev tools", "Web apps".
dofollowNoOnly platforms giving a dofollow backlink.
projectIdNoOmit it when the account has one project, which is the free tier.
excludeTrackedNoLeave out every platform this project has already been submitted to or planned for. Needs a token, and is what makes "one I have not done yet" answerable.
maxApprovalDaysNoOnly platforms approving within this many days. Leaves out every platform that publishes no approval time, the same way a rating bound leaves out the unrated.
maxDomainRatingNoOnly platforms up to this domain rating. The small, quick, unglamorous end of the directory, which is where a first submission usually belongs.
minDomainRatingNoOnly platforms with at least this domain rating.
requiresBacklinkNoFilter on whether they demand a badge/link back.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does disclose useful behavioral traits: it searches the entire directory, respects a project tracker when a token is supplied, and returns summaries rather than full records. It could add more about auth/rate limits, but for a read-only search tool the behavior is adequately transparent.

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?

Every sentence pulls weight: the first lists what the tool searches and how to filter, the second gives the concrete user phrase and the authoritative source over model memory, the third explains the return type and the next tool. It is dense but well-structured and front-loaded.

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 12 optional parameters and no output commentary, the description tells the agent what to use, what to filter by, what the source of truth is, and what to call next for full details. It is complete enough though it stops short of describing return field shape or pagination behavior.

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 coverage is high at 92%, so the input schea carries most of the parameter meaning. The description adds context about filtering concepts and the token-gated excludeTracked behavior, but mostly names parameters rather than revealing details beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it searches the SubmitMap directory of startup launch platforms. It also distinguishes itself from the get_platform sibling by noting it returns summaries rather than full records, and frames itself as the tool behind a concrete user request.

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?

It explicitly describes when an agent should use it (whenever the user asks for a directory to submit to, and when asked about what is in the directory rather than memory). It also directs the agent to call get_platform for full record details including submission steps, which is a clear alternative.

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

All directory toolsInspect
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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource/action: projects vs platforms vs submissions vs account, and pairings like search_platforms/get_platform and qualify_project/plan_submissions are separated by clear scope. The only mild ambiguity is get_platform with brief=true vs submission_playbook, since both can return the same form brief, but one is generic and the other is project-specific.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow verb_noun snake_case (create_project, list_submissions, qualify_project, record_submission). The exceptions are whoami, a common idiom rather than verb_noun, and submission_playbook, a noun phrase instead of something like get_submission_playbook, so the pattern is strong but not perfect.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is comfortably within the well-scoped range for a domain covering projects, platforms, submissions, planning, and account identity. Each tool maps to a recognizable workflow step and none feel redundant.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core lifecycle: create/read/update projects, search/read platforms, qualify and plan, list/record submissions, and identify the account. It lacks delete_project and a way to retrieve an existing plan or edit a submission record, but those are workable gaps rather than blockers.

Resources