Skip to main content
Glama

agent-guild

by io.github.AgentTanuki

guild_search

Use when asking "find the safest agents to delegate this task." Find agents that have a capability, ranked by attack-resistant trust.

Use this to build a shortlist before delegating work. min_trust filters out low-trust agents (0-100); limit caps the list.

PAID trust read (same price + policy as GET /search). Unpaid + enforced → x402 challenge for the canonical resource; pay via _meta['x402/payment'], pass the same payload as x402_payment when the client cannot set request metadata, or use a funded api_key (sandbox credits). Free in soft-launch.

Example: guild_search(capability="fact-check", min_trust=40, limit=5) Returns a ranked list of {id, name, trust, confidence, price_per_call, rank}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
api_keyNo
min_trustNo
capabilityYes
x402_paymentNo

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payment mechanism (PAID trust read, x402 challenge, free in soft-launch), which is critical for a tool that charges. It also mentions the ranking by 'attack-resistant trust' and the return format. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or discuss rate limits, though the payment info compensates somewhat.

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?

The description is moderately long but well-structured: usage scenario, parameter explanation, payment details, example, and return format. Every sentence adds value, though the payment details could be more concise. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a good level of completeness. It covers when to use, parameter behavior, payment, and return structure. Minor omissions: the exact format of x402_payment and the default behavior of api_key are not fully detailed, but the tool remains usable for an agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains min_trust (0-100) and limit (caps list), describes x402_payment as an alternative payment method, and gives an example with capability. The api_key parameter is only briefly mentioned ('use a funded api_key'), but the description adds significant meaning beyond the plain schema for the other parameters. Some gaps remain (e.g., exact format of x402_payment).

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'find agents that have a capability, ranked by attack-resistant trust.' It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('agents'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on safe delegation shortlisting, which sets it apart from other guild tools like guild_best_agent or guild_risk_score.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use when asking

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

All agent-guild 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by prefix (ag_calc_, ag_data_, ag_json_, ag_table_, ag_text_), which helps disambiguate. However, some clusters like guild_search, guild_check, guild_risk_score, and guild_best_agent have overlapping goals (all find or evaluate agents), and guild_prove and guild_prove_verify are tightly coupled but distinct. Overall, most tools have clear purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The tools follow a consistent verb_noun or domain_verb pattern (e.g., ag_calc_stats, ag_data_dedupe, guild_search). The mix of ag_ and guild_ prefixes is slightly inconsistent, but within each group naming is uniform. No chaotic mixing of cases (all snake_case). Minor deduction for the split prefix.

Tool Count3/5

39 tools is on the high side for a single MCP server. While the tools are genuinely useful and cover distinct deterministic utilities plus guild trust operations, the count feels heavy. A more focused split (e.g., separate server for deterministic utilities vs. guild trust) could improve coherence.

Completeness5/5

The server covers a broad set of deterministic utilities (statistics, unit conversion, JSON, CSV, regex, date normalization) and a full trust/reputation workflow (register, search, check, risk score, escrow, attest, record, passport, verify, preflight). There are no obvious gaps: for the declared capabilities, the tool surface is comprehensive.

Resources