Skip to main content
Glama

404.directory

by io.github.MM-sheng

Search 404 tool catalog

search_tools
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find third-party catalog tools using short provider/capability keywords, for example 'official documentation' or 'OpenAI docs'. All meaningful query terms must match across name, description, capability, category or provider; exact names rank first. Protocol, capability, category and trust filters remain mandatory. Returns active/degraded candidates or a no-match recovery path; no results do not prove that the task is unsupported. Does not execute or certify tools; preflight the chosen exact slug before use.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoShort keywords or an exact catalog name, e.g. 'official documentation' or 'openai_docs_mcp'. Keyword order is flexible; docs/doc map to documentation. Omit for filtered browsing. No arbitrary semantic inference.
limitNoMaximum results after relevance ranking and all filters, from 1 to 50.
categoryNoExact catalog category, e.g. 'developer-tools'.
protocolNoRequired protocol family when supplied; never relaxed automatically.
capabilityNoCase-insensitive literal capability substring, e.g. 'documentation-search'. Get available labels from list_capabilities; SQL wildcard syntax is not supported.
trust_thresholdNoMinimum existing catalog trust score. Not a calibrated safety probability; never lowered automatically.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / capability / description
      Added value: +"Case-insensitive literal capability substring, e.g. 'documentation-search'. Get available labels from list_capabilities; SQL wildcard syntax is not supported."
    • addedInput schema / properties / category / description
      Added value: +"Exact catalog category, e.g. 'developer-tools'."
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum results after relevance ranking and all filters, from 1 to 50."
    • addedInput schema / properties / protocol / description
      Added value: +"Required protocol family when supplied; never relaxed automatically."
    • addedInput schema / properties / q / description
      Added value: +"Short keywords or an exact catalog name, e.g. 'official documentation' or 'openai_docs_mcp'. Keyword order is flexible; docs/doc map to documentation. Omit for filtered browsing. No arbitrary semantic inference."
    • addedInput schema / properties / trust_threshold / description
      Added value: +"Minimum existing catalog trust score. Not a calibrated safety probability; never lowered automatically."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes further with matching semantics, exact-name ranking, strict filter behavior, active/degraded candidates, and a no-match recovery path. This adds meaningful context beyond annotations, though 'Protocol, capability, category and trust filters remain mandatory' is slightly ambiguous given that no parameters are required.

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?

Three sentences front-load the purpose and example, then cover matching/ranking/filters and output/limitations. No wasted words, though the 'filters remain mandatory' phrasing could be clearer about optionality.

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 search tool with no output schema and six optional parameters, the description covers query semantics, ranking, filter enforceability, result types, the no-results caveat, and the execution boundary. It stops short of naming specific sibling tools for follow-up, but is otherwise complete enough to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter basics; the description adds cross-parameter semantics: all query terms must match across fields, exact names rank first, and supplied filters are strict. This tells the agent how q and the filters interact, which is not in any individual parameter's description.

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 and resource: 'Find third-party catalog tools' with keyword-based search, and gives concrete examples ('official documentation', 'OpenAI docs'). The 'Does not execute or certify tools' boundary also distinguishes it from sibling execution/verification tools.

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 gives clear context: use for finding catalog tools by short keywords, with output/recovery behavior. It includes an explicit when-not ('Does not execute or certify tools; preflight the chosen exact slug before use') but doesn't name sibling alternatives such as search_official_docs or recommend_tools.

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

All 404.directory toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Potential overlap exists among search_tools, recommend_tools, list_capabilities, and get_capability_graph, but each serves a different purpose (query vs. recommendation vs. high-level list vs. relational graph). inspect_tool_server vs. get_tool (server vs. tool) and verify_web vs. understand_webpage (reachability vs. content) are clearly separated. Minor ambiguity between list_capabilities and get_capability_graph, but descriptions clarify.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_tools, get_tool, search_tools, verify_web). No mixing of camelCase or inconsistent styles. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range and appropriate for a directory service that provides search, retrieval, comparison, recommendation, inspection, invocation, and web verification. The count is comprehensive without being overwhelming, and each tool adds distinct value.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core directory operations (search, get, compare, recommend) and additional utilities (inspect, invoke, trust score, capability graph). It lacks a direct 'list all tools' or 'list all servers' endpoint, but search_tools and list_capabilities can approximate this. The inclusion of web verification and understanding tools extends beyond the catalog domain, but they are useful adjuncts. Overall, the surface is well-rounded with minor gaps.

Resources