Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

BuyUSBCables

by com.buyusbcables
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

suggest_catalog_addition

Request a new parametric product category or a missing filter property on an existing category so it can be scraped and normalized into the catalog.

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "suggest_catalog_addition"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo"category" to request a new product category, or "property" to request a filter field on an existing category.
notesNoExample ASINs, search terms, or engineering use case.
titleYesName of the requested category or property (e.g. "Anti-vandal pushbutton switches" or "mounting_hole_diameter_mm").
propertiesNoDesired filterable parameters / schema fields (e.g. "cutout_mm, contact_form, led_voltage_v, ip_rating").
target_categoryNoExisting category id if kind="property", or proposed slug if kind="category".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral signal: this is a 'request' that feeds a scraping/normalization pipeline, so it is not a synchronous catalog mutation — that materially changes how an agent should present the outcome. It stops short of disclosing what happens after submission (review queue, turnaround, confirmation) or whether duplicate requests are merged, which are important gaps for a write-side tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the request types followed by the downstream purpose; no filler. It is dense but readable, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition should close two gaps: what a successful submission produces (an id? a tracking reference?) and whether any review or latency is involved. It covers the 'what' well but leaves the lifecycle after submission unspecified, which is the main missing piece for a request-submission tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (kind, title, notes, properties, target_category) is already documented with examples and an enum, making 3 the baseline. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the schema — for instance, it does not clarify the interaction between kind='property' and target_category or which fields are ignored in each mode, which the schema leaves implicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource pair — 'Request a new parametric product category or a missing filter property on an existing category' — plus the downstream intent ('scraped and normalized into the catalog'). It is clearly a submission/request tool, readily distinguishable from the retrieval siblings (search_catalog, get_product_by_asin, list_categories), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the two request types named in the description and the kind enum, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (auth, deduplication against existing categories), and no statement about whether the request is reviewed before anything happens.

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

All BuyUSBCables toolsInspect
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