UseTested — Receipts-Verified Service Reviews

Get the top 10 services in a category ($0.05)

get_bundle

Read-onlyIdempotent

The top 10 best-measured live UseTested services in a category (inference|data|search|media|infrastructure), ranked by verdict tier + liveness-weighted reliability — evidence depth (≥20 settled calls), composite score (0.4 × liveness-adjusted reliability + 0.3 quality + 0.3 value; liveness scales reliability: ALIVE ×1.0, LIKELY ALIVE ×0.5). Only ALIVE/LIKELY ALIVE services qualify — AVOID, UNTESTED and DEAD are never included — and there is no paging: this is a best-of list, not the whole catalogue. Costs $0.05 via x402 (USDC on Base) — paid automatically by your x402 MCP client.

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": {
      "category": "<category>"
    },
    "name": "get_bundle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`category`	Yes	Category of services to fetch reviews for

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`top_n`	Yes
`reviews`	Yes
`category`	Yes
`rank_basis`	Yes
`methodology_version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / rank_basis
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / top_n
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "category",
-  "count",
-  "reviews",
-  "methodology_version"
-]New value: +[
+  "category",
+  "count",
+  "top_n",
+  "rank_basis",
+  "reviews",
+  "methodology_version"
+]

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the paid x402 flow ($0.05 USDC on Base, auto-charged by the client), the absence of paging, the inclusion/exclusion rule (AVOID/UNTESTED/DEAD never included) and the evidence-depth threshold of 20 settled calls. That is a lot of decision-relevant behavior the annotations alone don't convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the result shape, then constraints, then cost — good ordering with no filler sentences. The scoring formula is dense but it explains how to interpret the ranking, so it earns its space, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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?

Output schema covers return values, and the description covers cost, ranking, inclusion criteria and the no-paging constraint. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or anticipate charges is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with an enum and its own description, so the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the enum values, adding emphasis rather than meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb and resource ('top 10 ... services in a category') identifies both what is returned and the exact result set size, plus a concrete ranking basis (verdict tier + liveness-weighted reliability). It's clearly distinguishable from the catalogue-wide siblings like get_catalog and search_services.

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?

The description clearly signals when NOT to use it: 'there is no paging' and 'this is a best-of list, not the whole catalogue', which implies the catalogue tools. It stops short of naming get_catalog or search_services as the alternative, so the routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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

All UseTested — Receipts-Verified Service Reviews tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?