The AI Tools Index

Submit a new AI tool

submit_tool

Submit a new AI tool to The AI Tools Index on behalf of its maker. Creates a draft listing (not yet public) and returns a claimUrl the maker must visit to sign up and claim/publish it. Call this only when a user explicitly wants to list their own tool — never to submit a tool on someone else's behalf without their email. Rate-limited globally to 5 submissions per hour. Supply tagline, problemSolved, logoUrl and imageUrls whenever you can: they are what make the published listing look like a real product page rather than a stub.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The tool's https homepage URL.
`name`	Yes	The tool's name.
`email`	Yes	The maker's email — used to claim the listing on signup.
`logoUrl`	No	https URL of the tool's logo. We copy it to our own storage — we never hotlink the maker's host.
`tagline`	No	One line shown on every card (max 60 chars). Supply it — without one we fall back to a truncated description.
`xHandle`	No	X/Twitter handle, without the @.
`category`	Yes	Category slug, e.g. 'agents', 'writing', 'coding', 'design', 'marketing', 'productivity', 'video', 'analytics'.
`imageUrls`	No	Up to 5 https screenshot URLs, best first. Copied to our own storage. Without any, the listing shows a generated placeholder card instead of a real screenshot.
`description`	Yes	A description of the tool (40-1000 chars).
`problemSolved`	No	What problem the tool solves, in the maker's words (max 160 chars). Rendered as its own block on the listing page.
`xHandleIsFounder`	No	True when the handle is the founder's personal account rather than the product's.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes
`error`	No
`claimUrl`	No	Where the maker signs up to claim the DRAFT. Present only when ok is true.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (which are all false), the description discloses key behaviors: the submission is a draft that becomes public only after the maker visits a claimUrl, and the tool is rate-limited globally to 5 submissions per hour. This adds crucial context about side effects and constraints that annotations do not convey.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the primary action. It packs essential information—purpose, draft workflow, usage restrictions, rate limit, and param guidance—without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (11 params, 5 required, output schema present), the description covers the submission process, the claim flow, rate limiting, when to call, and which parameters to prioritize. It mentions the key output (claimUrl) and doesn't need to repeat schema details, making it fully adequate for an AI agent to operate 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?

The input schema already describes all 11 parameters (100% coverage), so the description needs to add value beyond that. It does so by advising 'Supply tagline, problemSolved, logoUrl and imageUrls whenever you can' and explaining their impact on listing quality. However, it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 ('Submit a new AI tool to The AI Tools Index on behalf of its maker') and clearly states the resource and outcome ('Creates a draft listing (not yet public) and returns a claimUrl'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tools or create_checkout, which serve different actions.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use ('Call this only when a user explicitly wants to list their own tool') and when-not-to-use ('never to submit a tool on someone else's behalf without their email') guidance. It also notes a global rate limit, preventing misuse. While it doesn't name alternatives, the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct that no alternative is needed.

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

All The AI Tools Index 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

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: searching, retrieving details, listing alternatives, viewing purchase offers, creating a checkout, and submitting a new tool. There is no overlapping functionality between any two tools, as even search vs. get_tool are layered (search returns summaries, get_tool returns full details).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a uniform verb_noun pattern in snake_case: create_checkout, get_tool, list_alternatives, list_offers, search_tools, submit_tool. The pattern is immediately predictable and readable, with no mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is ideal for this server's scope. It covers discovery (search, get, list alternatives), monetization (list offers, checkout), and content creation (submit), without any extraneous or redundant tools. Each tool earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core workflows for both buyers (search, retrieve details, see offers, purchase) and makers (submit a tool). The only minor gap is a lack of update/delete functionality for submitted listings, but that is outside the apparent intent for this server. The domain is well-covered.

Resources

Need Help?