Skip to main content
Glama

ComOS Federation Gateway

by io.github.ronrey

federation_catalog_search_multi

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search products (flat — one row per variant) across multiple tenants in parallel. Pass tenant_ids as an array of tenant IDs or "all" for every active tenant. Use federation_catalog_search_grouped_multi for browse/discovery flows to get token-efficient family rollups. tenant_ids come from federation_list_tenants (or pass "all"). Public read — auth_token is optional. Returns: { results: [{ tenant_id, status, data?, error? }], summary: { total_tenants, succeeded, failed } } Example: call federation_catalog_search_multi with arguments {"tenant_ids":"","query":""}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum results per tenant
queryYesSearch query string
categoryNoFilter by category
auth_tokenNoOptional JWT auth token
tenant_idsYesArray of tenant IDs to search, or "all" for all active tenants

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / auth_token / maxLength
      Added value: +4000
    • addedInput schema / properties / category / maxLength
      Added value: +4000
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / maxLength
      Added value: +4000
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the search is public, auth_token is optional, searches run in parallel, and the response includes per-tenant status/error fields. This gives the agent operational expectations beyond the schema.

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?

The description is information-dense and includes return shape, alternatives, and a usage example, but it is slightly run-on and could be split into clearer sentences. No sentence is wasted, though the example duplicates some schema information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully documents the return structure with results and summary fields, and covers parallel execution, auth, data source for tenant_ids, and the primary alternative tool. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the tenant_ids source (federation_list_tenants), the "all" convenience value, and the optional auth token behavior, plus a concrete invocation example.

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 searches products across multiple tenants in parallel, with a specific flat (one row per variant) shape. It distinguishes itself from the sibling grouped search by explicitly naming that alternative.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus federation_catalog_search_grouped_multi, saying the grouped variant is for browse/discovery flows and token-efficient rollups. It also tells the agent where tenant_ids come from (federation_list_tenants) and that "all" is allowed, providing clear usage context.

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

All ComOS Federation Gateway 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. A few pairs like federation_catalog_search_multi and federation_catalog_search_grouped_multi could be confused, but descriptions explicitly delineate when to use each. Overall, the boundaries are clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

The federation_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, but many tools use other prefixes (introspection_, moltbook_, llm_, web_, cohort_, legal_, about_us_, how_to_), breaking overall consistency. Within the main federation domain naming is predictable, but across the full set it's mixed.

Tool Count2/5

72 tools is far beyond the typical 3-15 for a coherent set. While the federation scope is broad, the sheer number makes the surface unwieldy and increases the risk of misselection, even if each tool individually earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers lifecycle management (create/update/delete/suspend tenants), manager operations, agents, catalog search, governance, introspection, legal, and auxiliary functions like email and web research. Platform-specific actions are exposed via federation_enter_tenant, so no critical dead ends are apparent.

Resources