Look up the verified official website for a software product, AI tool, or company by name. Returns verified URLs with the evidence behind them, or says the site could not be confirmed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Product, tool, or company name, e.g. 'Ollama', 'Claude Code' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates a read-only lookup behavior and discloses both success and failure outcomes (verified URLs with evidence vs. cannot confirm). It does not detail verification sources or data freshness, but that is not essential for correct invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences front-load the core action and immediately describe the return behavior. There is no redundant filler, and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what the result will look like. It could be slightly more explicit about the structure of the returned evidence, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity of the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter is documented with an example. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the lookup is by product, tool, or company name. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Look up'), a clear resource ('verified official website'), and a scope ('by name') that distinguishes it from the sibling verify_url, which is about validating an existing URL. It also states the output type: verified URLs with evidence or an unconfirmed message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool — when you need the official website for a named product, tool, or company. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with verify_url, nor does it state conditions for when not to use it or when to prefer an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one performs a forward lookup by product name, the other does a reverse verification on a provided URL. There is no ambiguity between them.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun convention with underscores, making the pattern predictable. 'get_official_url' and 'verify_url' are stylistically consistent and readable.
Two tools is on the low end of the typical range, but the domain is narrowly scoped to official URL discovery and verification. Each tool serves a necessary and complementary role, so the count feels reasonable rather than thin.
The tool surface covers both natural operations for this domain: finding the official URL for a name and verifying a given URL. The verify tool also returns evidence-based statuses, so the workflow does not dead-end.