UseTested — Receipts-Verified Service Reviews

Request a review of a service not yet covered (free)

request_review

Idempotent

Request that UseTested buy and test an agent-economy service (x402 endpoint, MCP server, AI API) we haven't reviewed yet. Free. Queues the service for evaluation consideration — requests factor into which services we test next. No SLA or guaranteed verdict.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "service_name": "<service_name>"
    },
    "name": "request_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Why this service matters to you (context helps prioritisation)
`service_url`	No	Endpoint or landing URL of the service, if known
`requestor_id`	No	Identity tag for the request ledger. Leave unset for normal use.
`service_name`	Yes	Name of the service you want reviewed

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes
`service_name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the request is queued for consideration, requests influence prioritisation, and there is no SLA or guaranteed verdict — an asymmetric, non-guaranteed outcome an agent should know about.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by cost, behavior, and the key caveat. The standalone 'Free.' earns its place and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers cost, queueing behavior, and the no-guarantee caveat, which is what an agent needs before calling. The only gap is not pointing at request_retest for services that already have a review.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail. It does narrow the domain ('x402 endpoint, MCP server, AI API'), which gives some meaning to service_name/service_url, but that is marginal over the schema baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Request that UseTested buy and test an agent-economy service') plus the scope qualifier 'we haven't reviewed yet', which functionally distinguishes it from request_retest. It stops short of naming the sibling it excludes, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'we haven't reviewed yet', but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. request_retest for already-covered services). 'Free' and 'No SLA or guaranteed verdict' set expectations for the outcome rather than telling the agent when to pick this tool.

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

All UseTested — Receipts-Verified Service Reviews tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?