Gemalli B2B Trade

Post a buying request

post_request

Gemalli request board: post what you need to buy (product, quantity, destination); verified manufacturers worldwide reply with quotes within days. Free to post. Pass the person's own words and their real email (ask them, never invent one). Returns a request_code with status "validating"; call get_request_status shortly after — if it says "needs_info", ask the person the questions and send the answer with answer_request_question. The person receives an email to confirm the request.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "post_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	The person's name, as they gave it.
`text`	Yes	What they want to buy, in their words: product, quantity, destination, terms.
`email`	No	The person's real email — confirmation and replies go there. Not needed if you are signed in as the buyer.
`locale`	No	Language of the request, e.g. "en".
`company`	No	Their company name, if known.
`country`	No	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country of the buyer company.
`website`	No	Company website, if known.
`agent_name`	No	Name of the agent or platform sending this, e.g. "Claude" — recorded as the source.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026
RemovedOct 15, 2026
AddedOct 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, non-destructive), and the description adds real substance on top: the returned request_code starts in status 'validating', the person receives a confirmation email, and posting is free. It does not mention failure modes or what happens if the person never confirms, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then input integrity, then the follow-up workflow — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense with workflow steps in a single block, which slightly taxes scanning but every clause carries information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining the return value (request_code with status 'validating') along with the state transition to 'needs_info' and the downstream email side effect. For an 8-parameter open-world write tool, that is enough for an agent to call it correctly and know what to do next.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds the meaningful constraint to pass the person's own words and their real email ('ask them, never invent one'), which reinforces the critical anti-fabrication rule but covers only 2 of the 8 fields.

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 — posting a buying request to the Gemalli request board — and names the concrete inputs (product, quantity, destination) plus the outcome (verified manufacturers reply with quotes). It does not distinguish this from the sibling request_quote tool, which plausibly overlaps, so it stops short of the sibling differentiation a 5 requires.

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?

Gives clear operational routing: call get_request_status shortly after, and if the status is 'needs_info', ask the person the questions and send answers via answer_request_question. What's missing is a when-not-to-use signal or a contrast with request_quote, so the agent knows only the happy path, not the alternatives.

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

All Gemalli B2B Trade tools Inspect

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

Need Help?