mcp-knowledge

content_ranking

Read-only

Return the TOP-ranked content entities in a category, by a chosen criterion — the direct answer to superlative / decision queries: 'best video games', 'top RPGs', 'cheapest games', 'best value RPGs', 'best FPS playable right now', 'most popular music artists'. Criteria: critic_score, popularity, price, value (critic score per unit price). direction flips it (asc = cheapest/lowest first). available_only restricts to entities currently buyable. Sliceable by genre and release-year window; every result carries its score, price and source. When to use: an agent must produce a ranked shortlist to support a recommendation, a purchase or a 'what is the best X' decision.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`async`	No	If true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
`genre`	No	Optional genre filter, e.g. 'RPG', 'FPS', 'thriller'
`limit`	No	Number of ranked results (default 20)
`domain`	Yes	Content domain to rank within
`year_to`	No	Optional latest release year
`criterion`	No	critic_score (0-100, default) · popularity · price · value (critic score per unit price)
`direction`	No	desc = best/highest first (default); asc = cheapest/lowest/least first. Defaults to asc for price.
`year_from`	No	Optional earliest release year
`available_only`	No	If true, restrict to entities currently available to buy/play (default false)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`genre`	No
`domain`	Yes
`ranking`	Yes
`year_to`	No
`criterion`	Yes
`direction`	No
`year_from`	No
`available_only`	No

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) by describing the tool as returning results without side effects. It discloses that every result carries its score, price, and source, and mentions async behavior for slow queries, adding 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 slightly long but front-loaded with purpose and examples. Every sentence adds value, but some repetition with schema could be trimmed. Overall it's well-structured and clear.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, 1 required), the description is complete. It explains criteria, filtering by genre and year, direction, and availability. The output schema exists (though not shown), so return values are covered. No gaps are apparent.

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 parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of 'direction' (asc = cheapest/lowest first) and 'available_only' (entities currently buyable), but schema already covers enums and types adequately.

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 that the tool returns top-ranked content entities in a category by a chosen criterion, with specific examples like 'best video games' and 'top RPGs'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on ranking and decision queries, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'an agent must produce a ranked shortlist to support a recommendation, a purchase or a 'what is the best X' decision.' It also explains the criteria and options like direction and availability, providing clear guidance.

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

All mcp-knowledge tools Inspect

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

C2.8/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in competitive intelligence, ESG, and risk assessment. For example, there are multiple tools for competitor analysis (competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, competitor_moves, etc.) with unclear boundaries. Agents would struggle to select the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of English and French, and follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case (e.g., abm_architect, action_plan_esg), while others are verb-focused (e.g., content_catalog, fx_rate). The lack of a uniform naming convention makes it hard for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 271 tools, the server is excessively large. Even for a broad knowledge domain, this number of tools makes discovery and selection inefficient. Typical coherent servers have 3-15 tools; this has an order of magnitude more, indicating poor scoping.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains (compliance, finance, marketing, HR, etc.), but the coverage is uneven due to redundancy. Key areas have multiple overlapping tools, while some sub-domains may still have gaps. Overall, the surface is broad but not well-curated.

content_ranking

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources