Amazon Seller MCP Server — AgentXray

Buy Box status

get_buybox_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Buy Box performance for one marketplace on the connected seller account: win rate over a window, SKUs currently losing the Buy Box with the competing price gap, recent held-to-lost transitions, and per listing how many sellers offer it, who holds the Buy Box and each other seller's price, FBA/Prime and feedback with a storefront link (listing_competition; read its summary out first). A listing Amazon returned no offer data for is unmeasured, never 'only seller'. Requires a marketplace id from list_my_marketplaces.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "marketplace_id": "<marketplace_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_buybox_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	Win-rate window in days (default 30).
`account`	No	Seller id of the client account to act on (from list_my_accounts). Only needed when more than one connected account covers this marketplace — an agency. Omit it and a single account resolves by itself; omit it with several and the tool refuses rather than guessing which client you meant.
`marketplace_id`	Yes	Required marketplace id (from list_my_marketplaces).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a listing with no offer data is 'unmeasured, never only seller', which prevents a serious misinterpretation of results. It also discloses that the per-listing section exists and where the storefront link comes from. It does not warn about cost or latency of the per-listing payload, which matters for a tool returning nested competitor detail.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and every element listed is a distinct returned data category rather than filler. The single-sentence catalog of metrics is dense and slightly run-on, and the mid-sentence parenthetical about listing_competition interrupts the flow.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what comes back, enumerating each result category, and adding a data-quality caveat about unmeasured listings. What is missing is whether the 'days' window governs all metrics or only win rate, and any hint about response size for the per-listing competitor breakdown.

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%, including the agency/multi-account resolution rule for 'account', so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only reinforces that marketplace_id is required and repeatedly frames the scope as 'one marketplace' and a 'window' for win rate; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb+resource (Buy Box performance for one marketplace) and enumerates the concrete outputs: win rate over a window, SKUs losing the Buy Box with price gap, held-to-lost transitions, and per-listing seller/price/FBA/feedback detail. No sibling tool covers Buy Box, and the scoping ('one marketplace on the connected seller account') makes the boundary unambiguous.

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?

It states the prerequisite explicitly ('Requires a marketplace id from list_my_marketplaces'), routing the agent to the right sibling first, and points at listing_competition with an instruction to read its summary out first. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or which sibling answers an adjacent question (e.g. get_listing_issues for Buy Box eligibility problems).

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

All Amazon Seller MCP Server — AgentXray tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?