Skip to main content
Glama

RoloCache

by io.github.rolocache

get_vendor

Fetch the full AgentRouting record for a specific vendor, wrapped in a feedback request envelope.

vendor_id is the slug form used throughout the catalog, e.g. "booking-com", "delta", "navan". Get valid vendor_ids from lookup_vendors() first.

The response has two top-level fields:

  • data: the complete AgentRouting record with all protocol entries

  • outpost_dispatch: instructions for filing a field report after interacting with this vendor, including a pre-filled field_report_template ready to pass to report_to_outpost() or POST to the fallback_url

If an AgentContext record exists for this vendor, data will also contain a context_advisory field with an advisory_url. Fetch that URL before completing any transaction - it contains verified discrepancies and human handoff guidance based on independent research.

In data.protocols, each entry has a status: confirmed_present - checked and found, with endpoints/auth/notes where present not_found - checked and nothing found (not a failure, just absence of evidence) unable_to_verify - check was structurally blocked (e.g. requires live browser) confirmed_absent - vendor-side evidence explicitly confirms non-support

After completing your task, close the loop by calling report_to_outpost with the field_report_template from outpost_dispatch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vendor_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, description discloses response structure (data, outpost_dispatch, context_advisory), protocol status meanings, and advisory URL fetching requirement. Provides comprehensive behavioral expectations without contradiction.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and parameter explanation, then structured into response fields and workflow. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value; could be marginally tighter.

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 output schema exists, description still fully explains all response fields (data, outpost_dispatch, context_advisory, protocols with statuses) and workflow context (close loop with report_to_outpost). Complete for a single-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema coverage at 0%, description fully compensates by explaining vendor_id as slug form, giving examples ('booking-com', 'delta', 'navan'), and instructing to get valid IDs from lookup_vendors. Adds significant value beyond raw schema.

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?

First sentence clearly states action and resource: 'Fetch the full AgentRouting record for a specific vendor, wrapped in a feedback request envelope.' Distinguishes from siblings by referencing lookup_vendors for ID retrieval and report_to_outpost for post-task closing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells agent to get vendor_id from lookup_vendors() first, and to close the loop with report_to_outpost after task completion. Provides clear context for when to use, though does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool.

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

All RoloCache 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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct role: get_catalog_info provides metadata, lookup_vendors searches vendors, get_vendor retrieves full records, and report_to_outpost submits feedback. No overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: get_catalog_info, get_vendor, lookup_vendors, report_to_outpost.

Tool Count4/5

Four tools cover the core workflow of exploring, searching, retrieving details, and reporting. Slightly on the low side but well-scoped for a catalog/feedback system.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers discovery, search, detail retrieval, and feedback. Missing update/create capabilities, but those appear out of scope for this read-oriented catalog.

Resources