Skip to main content
Glama
ankitkapur1992-hlido

hlido-mcp

by ankitkapur1992-hlido
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

find_trusted

Find Hlido-reviewed agents that match a free-text need, ranked by trust. Returns agents at or above a minimum tier with score and review URL.

Instructions

Discover Hlido-reviewed agents that match a free-text need, ranked by trust. Returns reviewed agents at or above a minimum tier, each with its Laddoo score, tier, and review URL. Use this for keyword/need-based discovery; for semantic task-matching prefer find_similar_agents, and for structured constraint filters (category/score/tier) prefer recommend.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
needYesFree-text description of the capability you need (e.g. 'CLI coding agent that edits multiple files at once').
min_tierNoMinimum trust tier to include (VITAL is strictest, FLATLINE allows all). Defaults to STEADY.STEADY
limitNoMaximum number of agents to return (default 10).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum number of agents to return (default 10)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / min_tier / description
      Added value: +"Minimum trust tier to include (VITAL is strictest, FLATLINE allows all). Defaults to STEADY."
    • addedInput schema / properties / need / description
      Added value: +"Free-text description of the capability you need (e.g. 'CLI coding agent that edits multiple files at once')."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals return contents ('each with its Laddoo score, tier, and review URL'), ranking by trust, and the minimum-tier filtering behavior, implying a read-only operation. It doesn't mention pagination or how trust is calculated, but the core behavior is transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return details, and usage alternatives. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the response includes (agents with score, tier, review URL) and how results are ranked. It could add a bit more about the trust ranking semantics, but for a read-only discovery tool, it covers the necessary context sufficiently.

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 three parameters clearly. The description adds the nuance that 'need' is a free-text, keyword-based query and contrasts it with structured filters, but this is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool discovers Hlido-reviewed agents matching a free-text need, ranked by trust. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives (find_similar_agents and recommend), which sharpens purpose.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for keyword/need-based discovery' and specifies when to prefer other tools: 'for semantic task-matching prefer find_similar_agents, and for structured constraint filters prefer recommend.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools