holdmark · facts about online stores

Find stores in the holdmark registry

find_stores

List the online stores in the holdmark registry, with a summary of their published facts. Each store publishes the same facts under the same rules: whether it delivers its orders (checked with the carrier) and whether it refunds money (checked with the payment processor). holdmark does not rank stores and has no score, so compare them yourself by whatever the person actually cares about. The registry only contains stores that connected their data. A store missing from it has not been judged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "find_stores"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	Field to order by. Default: domain (alphabetical).
`limit`	No	How many to return. Default 50, maximum 100.
`order`	No	Ascending or descending. Default: asc.
`offset`	No	Skip this many, to page through the list.
`category`	No	Filter by the category the merchant declared. Declared, not checked: it says what a store sells, not how it behaves.
`meets_limits`	No	Only stores that meet (or do not meet) the published limits.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses how the two published facts are verified (carrier, payment processor), that the data set is incomplete by construction, and — importantly — that a missing store is not a negative signal. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or response size.

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 verb and resource, then builds outward to verification model and coverage caveat. Five sentences is on the long side, but each carries distinct information; only the 'compare them yourself' phrasing is slightly padded.

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?

For a six-parameter, annotation-free list tool with no output schema, the definition explains the data model well enough to interpret results honestly. Paging behavior and the exact shape of the 'summary of published facts' are left to the schema and inference.

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%, so the schema already documents all six optional parameters including defaults, bounds, and the 'declared, not checked' nuance on category. The description adds framing about why comparison matters but no per-parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (online stores in the holdmark registry) plus what each entry contains (a summary of published facts). This cleanly separates it from the singular get_store sibling without naming it.

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?

Gives clear operating context: holdmark does not rank stores, so the caller must compare them by the user's own criteria, and only connected stores appear. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to get_store for per-store detail, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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

All holdmark · facts about online stores 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?