Skip to main content
Glama

Look up one vendor's record

lookup_vendor
Read-onlyIdempotent

The Xither record for one vendor. Use it when the user names a specific vendor and asks where it publishes its sub-processor list or DPA, how long its terms give to object to a new sub-processor, what it has changed, or when its models retire. Returns: where it publishes its sub-processor list and data processing agreement and when Xither last read each page (or why a page cannot be read); the notice window its agreement states for new sub-processors (quoted, with source URL and read date); its public changes to either document with permalinks; and model retirement dates it publishes for the next 365 days. One vendor per call; accepts a name, slug or domain. If the name matches several vendors it returns their slugs to call again with; if it matches none, the vendor is not in the record, which says nothing about what the vendor publishes. Use search_vendors instead when you only have part of a name, notice_windows to compare windows across vendors, and upcoming_model_retirements for retirements across vendors. Changes appear 30 days after Xither records them; subscribers get them the same morning at www.xither.com/pricing.

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": {
      "vendor": "<vendor>"
    },
    "name": "lookup_vendor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vendorYesA vendor name, slug or domain, for example "HubSpot", "hubspot" or "hubspot.com".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses data latency ('Changes appear 30 days after Xither records them'), ambiguity handling (multiple matches return slugs to retry), the meaning of a negative result ('says nothing about what the vendor publishes'), and per-field read dates. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs and none are available in structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and use cases are front-loaded, then return values, then disambiguation rules, then alternatives - a sensible order. The main waste is the closing marketing sentence about subscriber pricing at xither.com, which does not help an agent decide or invoke, and the long run-on sentence enumerating return fields could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value semantics - and it does, enumerating the four returned data elements and noting quoted windows with source URL and read date. Combined with ambiguity and absence behavior, nothing material is missing for a single-parameter read tool.

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% and the schema already gives examples for name/slug/domain, so the description's restatement of accepted forms is duplicate. It does add meaning beyond the schema by specifying 'one vendor per call' and describing what happens when the value matches several vendors, which affects how the argument should be supplied and interpreted.

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 first sentence names the exact resource and scope (one vendor's Xither record), and the enumerated use cases (sub-processor list/DPA location, objection window, changes, model retirements) make the tool's purpose concrete. Sibling tools are named with the specific conditions that select them, so an agent can distinguish lookup_vendor from search_vendors, notice_windows and upcoming_model_retirements without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use it when the user names a specific vendor and asks...' followed by four concrete question types. It also names each alternative and the condition for choosing it: search_vendors for partial names, notice_windows for cross-vendor window comparison, upcoming_model_retirements for cross-vendor retirements.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources