Skip to main content
Glama

List sub-merchants

list_sub_merchants
Read-onlyIdempotent

[Admin] List sub-merchants under the merchant account.

Paginated list of the sub-merchants the caller administers (the admin-portal sub-merchants list). Visibility is enforced by row-level security. Capped at 1000 records per page.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of records to return (1–1000).
offsetNoNumber of records to skip from the start of the result set.
order_byNoSort order of the result set.created_at_newest
filter_textNoCase-insensitive search on the sub-merchant name.
merchant_idNoOptional merchant to scope to. Admins and sub-merchant operators only; other callers always use their token's merchant.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe sub-merchants the caller administers for this page.
paginationYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: pagination capped at 1000 records, row-level security, and admin scope, which go beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the admin context and purpose, followed by pagination and security details. No unnecessary words.

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?

With full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers core purpose, pagination cap, and security. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Lacks mention of sorting/filtering but schema handles that.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal new meaning, only reiterating the pagination cap already present in the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states 'List sub-merchants under the merchant account' with a clear verb (list) and resource (sub-merchants). No sibling tool has a similar name, so differentiation is inherent.

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 specifies admin context and row-level security, giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide when-not guidance, though naming makes it unique.

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.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resources and actions, with clear category prefixes like [Interviews], [Results], and [Admin]. A few pairs could be confused—create_interview vs. create_interview_from_questions and update_interview vs. set_interview_state—but the descriptions do enough to separate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, generate_*. The main deviation is jobmojito_configuration, which is a noun phrase rather than an action verb, and a few longer names like request_another_interview_attempt break the clean pattern slightly.

Tool Count2/5

With 29 tools, this server is above the 25+ threshold and places a significant navigation burden on an agent. The tools are organized into coherent domains, but several admin/merchant and results tools could likely be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The core interview lifecycle is well covered: create, read, update, list, state changes, result retrieval, and report generation. However, there are notable gaps such as no delete operations for interviews or catalogue directories, no candidate management beyond listing/registration, and no explicit result-decision tool.