Skip to main content
Glama

pickanagency

by io.github.Natden444

Get matched with fitted agencies

match_agencies
Read-only

Pick an Agency's matching engine. Given a buyer brief (services needed, location, budget, industry), returns a short ranked shortlist of agencies that best fit - the same logic behind the free 'Get Matched' tool. WHEN TO USE: when the user describes their needs/project and wants a RECOMMENDATION ('I need a social media agency in Paris, ~$5k/month'). Requires at least one service. Use search_agencies instead for open browsing/filtering without a brief; use get_agency to drill into one result afterwards.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNoTarget city.
limitNoShortlist size (default 5).
budgetNoMonthly budget, e.g. '$5k-10k' or '5000'.
countryNoTarget country.
industryNoBuyer's industry, e.g. 'E-commerce'.
servicesYesServices the buyer needs, e.g. ['SEO', 'Content Marketing'].
platformsNoAd platforms, e.g. ['Meta Ads', 'Google Ads'].

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not required to cover safety. The description adds value by explaining the matching logic (same as free 'Get Matched' tool) and that it returns a ranked shortlist, providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise with three clear sections: what it does, WHEN TO USE, and alternatives. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined. Overall, efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (matching engine with multiple parameters), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage, requirements, and connection to other tools. No output schema exists, but the description states it returns a shortlist, which is adequate. Minor gap: no mention of how results are returned or potential edge cases like no matches.

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 100% with all parameters described. The description briefly mentions 'services needed, location, budget, industry' but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. Therefore, baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool is a matching engine that returns a ranked shortlist of agencies given a buyer brief. It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives for browsing (search_agencies) and drilling down (get_agency).

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 section specifies the scenario (user describes needs, wants recommendation) and gives a concrete example. It also clearly states prerequisites (at least one service) and when to use sibling tools instead, providing complete usage guidance.

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

All pickanagency 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: browsing/filtering, matching based on brief, and fetching full profile. Descriptions clearly differentiate when to use each, leaving no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All three tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern (get_agency, match_agencies, search_agencies) using snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count4/5

Three tools is on the lower end but appropriately covers the core workflow of agency discovery: searching, matching, and retrieving details. No tools are missing for the apparent scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the main user flow (search, match, get detail) for an agency directory. Minor gaps like listing all services or updating entries exist but are likely out of scope.

Resources