services_get_listingFetch a single service listing including its scope schema — the fields a quote request or purchase scope must provide — and, for fixed-price listings, the deterministic pricing formula (flat price plus optional per-unit block billing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service_listing_id | Yes | UUID of the service listing to fetch. |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious response context: the returned object includes the scope schema and, conditionally for fixed-price listings, a deterministic pricing formula with flat price and optional per-unit block billing. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause contributes a non-obvious detail about scope schema or fixed-price pricing behavior. There is no filler, no repetition of annotations, and no wasted words.
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?
For a one-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential return contents and the conditional pricing behavior well. It is slightly less complete than it could be because it does not mention visibility/ownership boundaries relative to seller_get_listing or error behavior, but those are minor given the annotations and simple schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single required parameter is already well-described in the schema as 'UUID of the service listing to fetch.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 specific verb+resource ('Fetch a single service listing') and goes beyond the title by naming the distinctive payload elements: the scope schema and the deterministic pricing formula. It does not explicitly distinguish services_get_listing from seller_get_listing, so it misses the top bar for sibling differentiation.
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 emphasis on scope schema and pricing formula implies this is a detail/read call for one service listing, but the description never says when to prefer it over seller_get_listing or services_search_listings, nor gives exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than explicit.
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.