Skip to main content
Glama

Nevermined Catalog

Find (and optionally pay) the best service for a need

route_by_intent

Given a plain-language description of what you need, find, and optionally pay in the same call, the single best payable catalog service, so you do not have to pick among listings yourself. Use it instead of search_services when you want the right service for a task rather than a list to browse: it ranks candidates on Nevermined's own relevance and quality signals (deterministic; no model reads the merchant listings), applies a fail-closed payability gate (listed, healthy, moderated, x402/mpp, not flagged unpayable), and returns the winner as chosen (with its opaque invoke handle, never a raw host) plus a ranked shortlist and the rankingSource used (semantic or lexical). With autoPay:false (the default) it returns the pick only and charges nothing; the next step is normally get_service on chosen.slug, then pay_service with the endpoint you need. With autoPay:true it also pays the winner through the same path as pay_service and returns the upstream call in result: result.status and result.body are the vendor's answer, and result.paid: true means a payment was attempted, not that it settled, so read result.payment.status (Settled, Issued or Failed). autoPay calls the winner at its base URL plus any path you pass, and you only learn the winner from this call, so it suits single-endpoint services; a multi-endpoint winner typically answers 404 at its base URL. autoPay requires requestId; an API-key caller must also pass delegationId, while an OAuth-connected caller spends from the grant it approved and needs none. Outcomes: no listed, payable match → {"status":"no_fundable_match"} (broaden the intent or filters; nothing charged), never a wrong pick; missing_autopay_fields (nothing charged); on autoPay, payment_indeterminate (check list_payments, and retry only with the same requestId) and already_paid (this requestId was already paid, see paymentId; nothing new billed). Every pick and each of these outcomes carries an instructions string with the next step; a payment the Router declines on autoPay comes back as a tool error carrying the API's message. Requires your Nevermined API key on the Authorization header.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoRequest body for the paid call (autoPay only).
pathNoSubpath appended to the winner when paying (autoPay only).
limitNoShortlist size to return (1–20, default 5).
intentYesPlain-language description of the service you need (e.g. "translate English to German").
methodNoHTTP method for the paid call (autoPay only).
searchNoQuery string (no leading ?) for the paid call (autoPay only).
autoPayNoWhen true, also pay and relay the winner in the same call (same path as pay_service); requires requestId, plus delegationId when you authenticate with an API key. Default false → return the pick only, no charge.
filtersNoOptional structured narrowing; all fields optional.
headersNoExtra headers for the paid call (autoPay only).
requestIdNoIdempotency key — REQUIRED when autoPay is true.
delegationIdNoDelegation to charge on autoPay. Required when you authenticate with an API key; an OAuth-connected caller spends from the grant it approved, so it can omit this (a value there does not choose the delegation).
maxTotalCentsNoRefuse a paid quote above this (fee-inclusive), before purchase (autoPay only).
credentialHeaderNoHeader the Router should carry the minted payment credential in on the paid hop (autoPay only). Send it only when the winning service needs its own auth AND a payment credential (e.g. "Payment"). Ignored when autoPay is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: it discloses deterministic ranking via Nevermined's own signals, a fail-closed payability gate, return fields (chosen, shortlist, rankingSource, result.status, result.payment.status), auth requirements (API key header, delegationId vs OAuth), and exact outcome statuses (no_fundable_match, missing_autopay_fields, payment_indeterminate, already_paid). This is exceptional transparency for a complex payment-routing tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands into detailed behavior and outcomes. It is dense but every sentence adds needed information for a complex tool with 13 parameters and payment flows. It could be more scannable with structure, but it avoids fluff and earns its length.

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?

Despite high complexity, absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description covers return shapes, payment status meanings, failure modes, authentication requirements, and next steps comprehensively. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents all 13 parameters in detail. The description largely repeats those semantics (e.g., autoPay requirements, requestId idempotency, delegationId vs OAuth) and adds only limited operational nuance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it finds and optionally pays the single best payable catalog service from a plain-language need. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_services and explaining it returns a pick instead of a list. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 says to use it instead of search_services when you want the right service for a task rather than a list to browse. It also distinguishes autoPay:false (pick only, no charge) from autoPay:true (pays and returns the upstream call), and outlines next steps such as get_service on chosen.slug then pay_service.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources