Catalog Attribute Normalizer
Server Details
Catalog attribute normalizer, taxonomy-grounded — no fabricated Google/Shopify category IDs.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- ACJLabs/catalog-normalizer
- GitHub Stars
- 2
- Server Listing
- Catalog Attribute Normalizer
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.6/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Only one tool exists, so there is no potential for confusion between tools.
With a single tool, naming consistency is perfect.
One tool is appropriate for a focused normalizer server that performs a single batch operation.
The tool covers the full scope of catalog normalization including attribute canonicalization/extraction and category mapping for multiple taxonomies.
Available Tools
1 toolnormalize_catalogNormalize CatalogARead-onlyInspect
Normalizes a batch of catalog products (attribute canonicalization/extraction + category-path mapping into the requested target taxonomies: google, shopify, amazon). Returns one result per input product, same order: a NormalizedProduct on success, or { error, source_title } if that specific product's classification failed — one product's failure never voids the rest of the batch. attributes is keyed by a controlled vocabulary (size, color, material, gender, sleeve_length — unrecognized keys are dropped, not passed through under a model-chosen name) and each value carries provenance: "canonicalized" means it came from your own raw_attributes input for that product (deterministic cleanup only, no recall); "extracted" means the model inferred it from the title/description and it wasn't in your input — treat extracted values as a suggestion, not a confirmed fact about the product, the same way you'd treat a low-confidence category_paths entry. category_paths for google and shopify is retrieval-grounded against the real, current taxonomy files (not recalled from memory) — measured at 22/24 (91.7%) exact path+leaf_id matches on a 12-product evaluation set; amazon has no comparable public reference file, so it stays best-effort. Each entry's confidence (0-1) and leaf_id (null when not confident it matches a real node) are the honest signal regardless of taxonomy — treat a low-confidence or null-leaf_id result as a suggestion worth a quick human check, not a confirmed classification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| products | Yes | ||
| target_taxonomies | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behavioral traits: batch processing with independent per-product errors, controlled vocabulary for attributes with provenance (canonicalized vs. extracted), retrieval-grounded category paths with confidence and leaf_id, and fallback behavior. It aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint: true) and adds substantial context.
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 detailed but front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence contributes useful information (batch behavior, controlled vocabulary, provenance, confidence). A slight reduction for length, but the structure is logical and efficient.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (batch normalization, multiple taxonomies, confidence scores, error handling), the description covers all essential aspects: batch behavior, error reporting, vocabulary constraints, provenance, and interpretation of confidence and leaf_id. The output schema handles return values, so the description is complete.
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?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates well by explaining the purpose of 'products' (title, description, raw_attributes) and 'target_taxonomies' (enum: google, shopify, amazon). It also clarifies output semantics, adding meaning beyond the schema structure.
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 states the tool normalizes catalog products via attribute canonicalization/extraction and category-path mapping, specifying target taxonomies (google, shopify, amazon). It uses specific verbs and resources, effectively distinguishing from any potential siblings.
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 description explains when to use the tool (for normalizing batches of products) and provides guidance on interpreting results (e.g., treat extracted values as suggestions, low-confidence as needing human check). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions, though the absence of siblings reduces the need.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceKlarna-style product discovery for AI shopping agents. Makes product catalogs machine-readable so AI agents can search, compare, and purchase products programmatically.6MIT
- Alicense-qualityBmaintenanceEnables natural-language setup and management of a governed digital product catalog, including schema, products, and rules, with dry-run previews, audit logging, and two-phase confirmations for destructive actions.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceStructured product data from the open web — where platform APIs don't reach. Schema.org + AI extraction. Pay per call via Stripe MPP.2413Apache 2.0
- Flicense-qualityDmaintenanceEnables natural language product management (CRUD) with multiple classification methods, including LLM-based and fast ML classifiers, for product creation, listing, updating, and deletion via a chat interface.1
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.