find_tools_for_task
Rank the software an agent should use for a task.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes |
StackResolve
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.6/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Rank' without revealing what the ranking is based on, whether it returns a list, any ordering criteria, or side effects. It also does not mention any requirements or limitations. This is inadequate for a tool with no structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is not overly verbose, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential details that would make it informative. The structure is not front-loaded with key constraints or context; it merely states the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only source of context. It provides almost no information about the tool's behavior, return value, or usage constraints. An agent would not be able to call this tool correctly based solely on this description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and there is only one parameter, 'task', which has no description in the schema. The description does not clarify what format 'task' should take, what kind of input is expected, or how it influences the ranking. With no compensation from the description, the parameter semantics are entirely opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Rank') and a resource ('software an agent should use for a task'), which conveys the basic purpose. However, the resource is vague ('software' could mean tools, packages, or something else) and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_tools or how_to, which also relate to finding tools. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this tool from closely related ones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as search_tools or resolve. Agents are left to infer use cases, which is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
resolve and find_tools_for_task both return ranked tool recommendations for a task, and how_to also surfaces recommendedTools, making their boundaries unclear. search_tools adds further overlap as a registry search by query and requirements. The company/research and registry lookup tools are more distinct, but the task-to-tool cluster is genuinely confusing.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming is almost entirely snake_case verb_noun: get_company, find_competitors, search_tools, compare_products, list_registry. The exceptions are audit and resolve as bare verbs and how_to as an idiom, but they are still recognizable.
Tool Count4/5
Fifteen tools is at the upper end of a reasonable range, and the broad scope of registry lookup, research, comparison, audit, and interface generation supports a larger surface. However, find_tools_for_task largely duplicates resolve, so the count is slightly higher than necessary.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the main registry lifecycle: listing, searching, getting records, comparing, researching, pricing, readiness auditing, and generating agent interfaces. It is intentionally read/research-oriented, so the lack of registry CRUD is not a severe gap. Minor missing pieces like direct per-product OpenAPI retrieval or registry entry management are workable around.