Skip to main content
Glama

Vendor Legit Check

Server Details

Screen a vendor, store, or group-buy for legitimacy: reputation, red flags, Reddit sentiment.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

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.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion with other tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

Single tool name 'vendor_legit_check' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, consistent within itself.

Tool Count3/5

One tool is borderline thin for a server; while it packs multiple functions, the count is at the low end of reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The tool covers the core need of screening vendors with reputation, red flags, and sentiment. Minor gaps (e.g., no follow-up actions) but complete for a single-purpose check.

Available Tools

1 tool
vendor_legit_checkAInspect

Screen a vendor, store, or group-buy (by name or URL) for legitimacy before paying. Returns a reputation read, a red-flag checklist (e.g. no MOQ disclosed, brand-new vendor), and Reddit community sentiment. Use this to assess scam/non-delivery risk for a hobby/collectibles purchase or group buy.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesVendor, store, or group-buy name or URL, e.g. 'novelkeys' or a Kickstarter link.
redditNoInclude live Reddit sentiment (default true). Set false for a faster, lighter check.
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read-only screening operation (returns data, no mutation implied). It discloses that the 'reddit' parameter controls inclusion of live sentiment for speed/size trade-off. However, it does not mention rate limits, idempotency, or any potential side effects, which would be expected for a 5. The description adds moderate value beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two sentences, both dense with information. The first sentence covers action, inputs, and outputs. The second provides the use case. No redundancy or unnecessary words. Perfect front-loading.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values: reputation read, red-flag checklist, and Reddit sentiment. It covers parameters and use case. It lacks detail on return format or structure, which would be needed for a 5, but for a screening tool the information is sufficient for an AI agent to decide on invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for both parameters: 'query' is tied to 'name or URL', and 'reddit' is explained as 'include live Reddit sentiment' with a speed trade-off (set false for faster, lighter check). This provides usage nuance beyond the schema's literal descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Screen' and identifies the resource as 'vendor, store, or group-buy'. It clarifies inputs (name or URL) and outputs (reputation read, red-flag checklist, Reddit sentiment). The use case is explicitly tied to pre-payment legitimacy assessment for hobby/collectibles purchases, making the purpose highly distinct and actionable.

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?

The description states 'Use this to assess scam/non-delivery risk' and implies usage before paying. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but since no sibling tools exist, the context is sufficient. The guidance is clear and practical, earning a 4.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources