Skip to main content
Glama

BuyAPI

by io.github.TheSnakeFang

vendors.details

Read-onlyIdempotent

Follow-up tool for one known vendor. Retrieves detailed pricing, features, limits, gotchas, comparisons, and source provenance.

Call vendors.resolve first unless the user already provided a BuyAPI vendor ID like /database/supabase. Use this after a candidate is selected and the user needs claim-level pricing, limit, gotcha, or provenance details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoSpecific question to focus the response on
vendorIdYesBuyAPI vendor ID, e.g. /database/supabase

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimsNo
sourcesNo
coverageNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / claims
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {},
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / coverage
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "sources": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds context about the specific categories of information retrieved (pricing, limits, gotchas, provenance) and the required preceding resolution step, which goes beyond what annotations state.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage prerequisites and conditions. It is appropriately front-loaded and 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?

For a read-only, single-vendor details tool, the description sufficiently covers what it does, when to use it, and what to call first. The output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere, and annotations cover safety and idempotence, making this complete.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra value by giving a concrete vendorId example ('/database/supabase') in the usage guidance, but it does not explain the query parameter beyond the schema's existing description.

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 ('Retrieves') and a detailed resource ('detailed pricing, features, limits, gotchas, comparisons, and source provenance'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings by framing it as a follow-up tool for a single known vendor. It also explicitly ties it to the preceding step in a workflow (calling vendors.resolve first).

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 guidance: after a candidate is selected and the user needs claim-level details. It also gives a when-not/alternative by instructing to call vendors.resolve first unless the user already supplied a BuyAPI vendor ID, which directly addresses the sequential dependency with a sibling tool.

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

All BuyAPI 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

Every tool targets a distinct purpose: stack examples vs. recommendation, vendor discovery vs. comparison vs. details vs. cost estimation vs. evidence. There is no functional overlap, and the descriptions clearly delineate boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools follow a domain.action pattern (stacks.*, vendors.*), which is predictable. However, action names mix camelCase (findSimilar, estimateCost) with lowercase (recommend, compare), a minor inconsistency that doesn't hinder understanding.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools cover the vendor and stack selection domain without being overwhelming or sparse. Each tool earns its place by addressing a distinct step in the workflow.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the complete workflow: initial vendor discovery (resolve), comparison (compare), detailed info (details), cost estimation (estimateCost), evidence retrieval (evidence), and stack examples/recommendations (findSimilar, recommend). No obvious gaps.

Resources