Search and compare 26,000+ UK electronics products across multiple retailers including AO.
Get real-time prices, stock availability, and price comparison across retailers in a single search. Covers laptops, phones, tablets, headphones, TVs, monitors, cameras, gaming, and more.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools serve distinctly different purposes: search_products handles discovery and filtering across the catalog, while get_product retrieves detailed specifications for a specific item. No functional overlap exists.
Both tools follow an identical snake_case verb_noun pattern (search_products, get_product) with clear, action-oriented verbs that consistently describe their operations.
At 2 tools, the set is borderline thin for an electronics comparison domain. While it covers basic search and retrieval, it lacks supporting operations like spec-based filtering, comparison helpers, or category browsing that would typically accompany such a service.
Basic read operations are present, but notable gaps exist for the electronics domain: no server-side filtering by technical specifications (e.g., RAM, storage) forces inefficient client-side filtering, and there are no tools for price tracking, alerts, or direct comparison operations.
get_productAInspectGet full details for a single product by ID. Returns complete technical specifications including specs.description (full prose spec text with processor, RAM, storage, display, ports etc), pricing, stock level, delivery time, and all retailer offers with per-retailer pricing. Accepts both canonical product IDs and original retailer offer IDs. Use this after search_products to get detailed specs for comparison or recommendations. Always call this when a user needs precise product attributes, compatibility info, side-by-side comparisons, or price comparison across retailers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | The unique product ID from search results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Lists return contents comprehensively: technical specifications, pricing, stock level, delivery time, retailer offers. Also mentions parameter flexibility (accepts both canonical product IDs and retailer offer IDs). Missing statement about read-only nature or idempotency, but adequate for a retrieval tool.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output, then details, then usage guidance. No unnecessary 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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive information: purpose, return contents, parameter flexibility, and usage workflow. Nothing essential missing.
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?
Single parameter product_id is fully covered by schema (100% coverage). Description adds value by noting that it accepts both canonical product IDs and original retailer offer IDs, which is not in schema description.
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?
Clear verb 'get' and resource 'full details for a single product by ID'. Distinct from sibling search_products by specifying it returns detailed specs for comparison.
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?
Explicitly states 'Use this after search_products' and 'Always call this when a user needs precise product attributes, compatibility info, side-by-side comparisons, or price comparison.' Provides clear usage context, though lacks explicit 'when not to use' statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_productsAInspectHOW TO CALL THIS TOOL — read before every call: Decompose the user's request into filters first. Only what's left over goes in query. STEP 1: brand name → brand filter. STEP 2: product category → category filter. STEP 3: price → min_price/max_price. STEP 4: what remains → query. BAD: query='Sony headphones under £200' | GOOD: brand='Sony', category='Headphones', max_price=200, no query. BAD: query='tablet' | GOOD: category='Tablets', no query. BAD: query='smartwatch' | GOOD: category='Wearables', no query. BAD: query='macbook neo' | GOOD: brand='Apple', category='Laptops', query='neo'. BAD: query='Samsung QLED TV' | GOOD: brand='Samsung', category='TVs', query='qled'. If brand+category alone cover what the user wants, omit query entirely. Only put differentiating terms in query: model lines (neo, ultra, oled), variants, model numbers (WH-1000XM5, s25 ultra). CROSS-CATEGORY NOTE: Gaming headsets → category='Headphones', query='gaming headset'. The Gaming category is consoles/controllers/accessories only. Always set lite=true. If 0 results, broaden the query or drop filters. Use get_product for full specs. Search 19,000+ deduplicated UK electronics products across multiple retailers with price comparison. Covers: Laptops, Desktops, Phones, Tablets, Headphones, Monitors, TVs, Cameras, Keyboards, Mice, Speakers, Gaming, Wearables, Printers, Networking, Storage, Audio, Drones, Cables & Chargers. All prices in GBP. Returns summary data: title, brand, price, availability, category, purchase link, offer_count. MANDATORY PRICE COMPARISON: For any product relevant to the user's needs, if offer_count > 1, you MUST call get_product before responding — never mention multiple offers without presenting the full comparison. A response is incomplete if it references offer_count > 1 without retailer pricing details. Show: cheapest retailer, all other prices with the difference, exact savings amount, delivery differences if relevant. The offers[] array is sorted cheapest first. Even when the user doesn't explicitly ask about price, if offer_count > 1 it's always worth mentioning the savings. For spec-based queries (RAM, ports, screen size, weight etc.), search first then call get_product on top 3-5 results — do not assume specs from titles. STOCK: When availability is out_of_stock, mention it as an alternative and suggest checking back — do not silently omit it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lite | No | Return trimmed product objects with only essential fields (id, title, brand, price, currency, availability, image_url, purchase_url, offer_count). Always set to true unless full product objects are needed. | |
| sort | No | Sort order: 'relevance' (default), 'price_asc' (cheapest first), 'price_desc' (most expensive first). | |
| brand | No | Filter by brand name (exact match, case-insensitive). Examples: Apple, Samsung, Sony, HP, Dell, Lenovo, Anker, Bose, LG | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of products to return (default 50, max 100) | |
| query | No | Refinement terms ONLY — model lines, series, variants, model numbers (e.g. 'neo', 'ultra', 'oled', 'WH-1000XM5', 's25 ultra'). NEVER a category name: BAD query='tablet', query='smartwatch', query='laptop'. Set the category filter instead. NEVER a brand name: BAD query='Sony'. Set the brand filter instead. NEVER a price. Omit entirely when browsing a category or brand — 'show me tablets' = category='Tablets', no query. | |
| category | No | Filter by product category. Use ONLY these exact values: Laptops, Desktops, Tablets, Phones, TVs, Monitors, Headphones, Speakers, Cameras, Keyboards, Mice, Printers, Networking, Storage, Gaming, Wearables, Drones, Audio, Cables & Chargers. NOTE: 'Smartphones' is not valid — use 'Phones'. 'Televisions' is not valid — use 'TVs'. For TVs, use query: 'smart TV' — it returns far more results than 'TV' alone. Avoid query: 'television'. | |
| max_price | No | Maximum price in GBP. | |
| min_price | No | Minimum price in GBP. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool searches 19,000+ UK electronics products, returns summary data (title, brand, price, availability, category, purchase link, offer_count), mandates price comparison when offer_count > 1, and explains how to handle stock. No behavior is hidden.
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 long but well-structured with clear sections (HOW TO CALL, STEPs, BAD/GOOD examples, CROSS-CATEGORY NOTE, MANDATORY PRICE COMPARISON). Could be slightly more concise, but each part serves a purpose given the complexity of the tool.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return fields and includes critical behavioral requirements (price comparison, stock handling, spec queries). Covers cross-category edge cases and provides complete guidance for the tool's use.
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?
Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds immense value beyond the schema. It provides decomposition rules, bad/good examples for each parameter, cross-category notes, and usage patterns (like omitting query when browsing). This significantly aids correct parameter usage.
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 clearly defines the tool as a product search function, with detailed decomposition steps (brand, category, price, then query). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_product' by specifying that search returns summary data and that full specs require the other tool.
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?
Provides explicit step-by-step instructions on how to decompose user requests into filters, with multiple bad/good examples. Also includes cross-category handling, mandatory price comparison rules, and stock handling. This fully guides when to use this tool vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
