SiteCheck Company Records

Indian wholesale suppliers and manufacturers on IndiaMART

b2b_indiamart

Read-only

Indian wholesale suppliers and manufacturers on IndiaMART for a product keyword: supplier name, state, years exporting, nature of business, year established, verification badges (verified exporter, TrustSEAL, GST, IEC), rating and review count, export markets, product name, category, listed price and unit, minimum order and key specifications, with catalogue and product links. First result page (about 10 listings). Related tools on this server, for a different need: b2b_thomasnet when you need US and Canadian industrial suppliers from Thomasnet; b2b_bbb when you need Better Business Bureau search: finds businesses by name. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "b2b_indiamart"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	Product keyword, e.g. solar inverter, steel pipe, cotton yarn
`limit`	No	Listings to return, 1 to 20 (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`query`	No
`source`	No
`listings`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations it discloses material behavior: a pay-per-call pricing model ($0.002 USDC via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc) with the important guarantee that failed calls are not charged, plus the effective result cap. The only weakness is the mild tension between 'about 10 listings' and the schema's limit range of 1–20, which is left unexplained.

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?

It is front-loaded and dense, but the long enumerated attribute list largely duplicates what the output schema already carries, which is wasted space under the rule that return values need not be restated when an output schema exists. The single-sentence block makes it harder to scan than a two- or three-sentence split would.

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 the return values do not need spelling out here; what matters is coverage, cost, sibling routing and scope, all of which are present. Only the unexplained relationship between `limit` and the ~10-listing page cap leaves a small gap for an agent deciding how to paginate.

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 with type and examples. The description reinforces that `q` is a product keyword but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or format guidance, and it never clarifies how `limit` interacts with the stated ~10-listing page size — baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a precise resource — Indian wholesale suppliers and manufacturers on IndiaMART — and the retrieval mechanism (a product keyword), with an enumerated payload of supplier attributes. It is not framed as a verb+resource instruction (no 'search'/'find' verb), and it distinguishes itself from siblings only later via the 'related tools' sentence, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to alternatives with the conditions that select them: b2b_thomasnet for US/Canadian industrial suppliers and b2b_bbb for name-based BBB lookup. It also bounds the scope of this tool ('first result page, about 10 listings'), so an agent knows both when to call it and what it will not deliver.

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

All SiteCheck Company Records 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?