find_makersGlobal cross-node maker (supply) search. Filter by segment / region / node / has_website.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| segment | No | ||
| has_website | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the search is global and cross-node and enumerates the filter dimensions, which clarifies scope. However, it does not mention pagination, limit behavior, or read-only semantics, though 'search' implies a non-mutating operation.
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?
The description is two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and then enumerate the filter dimensions. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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?
The description covers the fundamental operation and filters, and an output schema exists so return structure does not need explanation. Yet it lacks explicit usage guidance, mentions only four of five parameters, and gives no detail on how node or segment values are specified, leaving some ambiguity among the many sibling tools.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explicitly identifies four of the five parameters as filters, giving the agent their role, and 'cross-node' adds context for the node parameter. However, limit is omitted and no value formats or allowed values for segment, region, or node are provided.
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 opens with a clear phrase 'Global cross-node maker (supply) search' that names the resource (makers) and the operation (search). It adds scope ('global cross-node') and domain ('supply'), distinguishing it from the sibling find_retailers without needing to inspect schemas.
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 'supply' qualifier and the existence of find_retailers imply this tool is for the supply side of the marketplace, but the description never explicitly says when to choose it over alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternate tool names, so an agent must infer the routing from context.
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.
Multiple tools overlap heavily: resolve_gtin, resolve_sparks, and get_signal_chain all resolve GTINs to different but closely related signals, and resolve_node vs node_market both return the same node with makers/retailers counts. Agents will struggle to pick the correct tool without reading deep into descriptions.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (check_, count_, find_, get_, list_, resolve_), but node_market breaks the pattern and the get_ vs resolve_ distinction is not obvious. Overall readable with only minor deviations.
14 tools is well-scoped for a CPG knowledge graph covering GTIN resolution, eligibility, supply/demand search, node metadata, taxonomy, and brand coverage. Each tool reasonably earns its place without overwhelming the surface.
The surface covers the apparent domain comprehensively: GTIN resolution, eligibility checks, maker/retailer discovery, node/spine queries, SKU taxonomy, brand listings, signal chains, and registries. For a read-only knowledge graph, there are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations.