Skip to main content
Glama

GrowVib: Social Media Growth

recommend_service

Read-onlyIdempotent

Choose WHICH plan option to order, once you know what to buy and for how many. Use it instead of comparing options yourself from search_catalog or get_service. Takes a service (or a platform plus a goal), a quantity, an audience and a preference. Returns one recommended option plus the cheapest, highest-tier and fastest-listed alternatives. Each pick carries the price per 1000, the total for this quantity, the quantity range it accepts, its quality tier, typed axes such as country or watch length, the listed delivery speed and start window, a sensitive flag marking a deliberate product such as a negative reaction, and short reasons written for the buyer. Branch on the typed fields; the reasons are prose in the requested locale and state only what an option gives, so their absence is never a drawback. One reason states how many independent delivery pools can serve the option, when two or more can: it is a count of the ways we can deliver it, not a promise about any one order, and a pick without it is not worse. The response also says how many options were considered, how many fit, and why the rest fell out (rejected: audience_mismatch, quantity_below_min, quantity_above_max, dominated). It carries quoted_at and catalog_version: the version fingerprints the option data the answer came from, so if you recommend, ask the user, then order, re-call and compare catalog_version to know whether the card changed in between. Prices are live at order time; placing an order re-prices from the same data get_quote does, so treat quoted_at as when this answer was computed, not as a price hold. tradeoffs compares each alternative with the lead as data (price and total deltas, quality steps, listed speed ratio, start bucket delta, max quantity delta, plus gives and costs naming the dimensions it wins and loses on; null means one side lists nothing). Use it to CHOOSE and to explain a choice as what each option gives ("$18.60 less for one tier lower and twice the listed rate"); never present a pick to the user as a percentage more expensive than another. Identify the service by service_id (from search_catalog) OR by platform + goal (the deliverable, e.g. platform "youtube" and goal "short-views" or "followers"). Read-only: it places no order. Pass the returned option_id as service_option_id to get_quote and create_paid_order (this endpoint lists it while the accountless x402 payment channel is on), or create_checkout when a person will pay in their own wallet instead (listed while checkout sessions are on).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNoThe deliverable metric key (followers, likes, views, short-views, members, comments, ...). Used with platform when service_id is omitted.
localeNoLanguage of the option labels and the reasons: en (default), fa, ru, uz or id. The typed fields are locale-independent, so pass the user's language freely.
audienceNo"worldwide" (default) for untargeted delivery, or "<axis>:<value>" such as "country:usa" or "emoji:❤️". On a vote service the poll answer is an audience too ("answer:option-2", "answer:yes"): ask the user which answer, never assume one. The response lists the audiences the service serves.
platformNoPlatform key (telegram, instagram, tiktok, youtube, ...). Used with goal when service_id is omitted.
priorityNo"balanced" (default), "cheapest", "quality" or "fastest": which pick leads. fastest ranks on the LISTED delivery rate then start window (the listing's own claims); when no eligible option lists either it falls back to balanced.
quantityYesThe quantity the user wants to order; every pick accepts it.
service_idNoThe service id from search_catalog. Optional when platform and goal are given.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / audience / description
      Previous value: -"\"worldwide\" (default) for untargeted delivery, or \"<axis>:<value>\" such as \"country:usa\" or \"emoji:❤️\". The response lists the audiences the service serves."New value: +"\"worldwide\" (default) for untargeted delivery, or \"<axis>:<value>\" such as \"country:usa\" or \"emoji:❤️\". On a vote service the poll answer is an audience too (\"answer:option-2\", \"answer:yes\"): ask the user which answer, never assume one. The response lists the audiences the service serves."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial context (prices live at order time, quoted_at is not a price hold, catalog_version fingerprinting, downstream handoff of option_id). However it is verbose and mixes genuine behavioral disclosure with editorial presentation guidance ('never present a pick as a percentage'), so it sits at solid-but-mixed rather than clean.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is one very long run-on paragraph that revisits the 'reasons' and 'delivery pools' points multiple times and folds in presentation advice. The lead is front-loaded, but the density of caveats and repeated phrasing hurts scannability and violates 'every sentence earns its place'.

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?

With no output schema and a cognitively complex tool, the description fully describes the return shape (lead pick, alternatives, tradeoffs, rejected reasons, quoted_at, catalog_version) and the downstream call chain. Nothing an agent needs to interpret results or proceed is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema (including the vote-answer audience nuance). The description reinforces how service_id vs platform+goal identify a service but adds little syntax beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Choose WHICH plan option to order') and immediately scopes it against siblings by naming search_catalog and get_service. An agent can distinguish this from the raw catalog/search tools without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says to use it 'instead of comparing options yourself from search_catalog or get_service,' states which inputs it takes, and instructs re-calling after user interaction to compare catalog_version. Clear when-to-use and alternatives are both present.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources