mcp-server

get_marketplace_attributes

Read-only

List a marketplace's OUTPUT attributes and how each is currently sourced — the tool for SOLVING THE ATTRIBUTE FORM (the discipline users struggle with). Returns {integrationId, attributes:[{code, label, required, hidden, valueSource, platformCode, constant, composedValue, defaultPlatformCode, defaultConstant, allowedValues, formatType, ruleId, ruleName, ruleEnabled, priceAttribute, currency, currencyConversionEnabled}], requiredCount, requiredUnmappedCount, unresolvedCodes}. valueSource is rule|composed|attribute|constant|unmapped (the effective source; a rule attached but ruleEnabled=false does NOT count and the attribute reads 'unmapped'). priceAttribute=true marks a money attribute (formatType price / price_with_delete); for those, currency is its target currency and currencyConversionEnabled whether Koongo converts the value into it (null = not a price attribute). Currency conversion only matters when the price is in a DIFFERENT currency than the store; if the attribute's name already names a currency (e.g. its label/code contains "EUR") the value is ALREADY in that currency, so set currencyConversionEnabled=false to avoid converting it twice. requiredUnmappedCount is the running count of REQUIRED attributes with no working source — 0 means the form is solved and the integration can build/export; unresolvedCodes lists exactly which ones to fix. Pass only_unresolved:true to get just those rows. To fill one, match the user's attribute label to its code, then map_marketplace_attribute. marketplace_id is from list_marketplaces. project_id is OPTIONAL (project_id_required otherwise — then call list_projects).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	No
`marketplace_id`	Yes
`only_unresolved`	No	Return only REQUIRED attributes that still have no working value source.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals critical behavioral details: a rule with ruleEnabled=false does not count as a source, currency conversion semantics with concrete edge cases, and the meaning of requiredUnmappedCount. It also exposes return structure and how output fields relate, making the tool's runtime behavior predictable.

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 is long but every sentence earns its place by explaining non-obvious semantics or workflow. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then return format, then field semantics, then usage parameters. The density is justified by the absence of an output schema and the subtle currency/rule behavior.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and three underdocumented parameters, the description is unusually complete: return fields, valueSource enumeration, price attribute handling, unresolvedCount meaning, filter flag, and downstream mapping step. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly and interpret its results.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully: marketplace_id is sourced from list_marketplaces, project_id is flagged as optional-but-sometimes-required with a fallback, and only_unresolved is explained in context. This gives the agent operational meaning for all three parameters beyond raw schema types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List a marketplace's OUTPUT attributes and how each is currently sourced.' It also identifies the tool's purpose ('solving the attribute form') and distinguishes it from mapping operations like map_marketplace_attribute. The scope is clear and immediately 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when solving the attribute form, checking if requiredUnmappedCount is 0, and using only_unresolved to focus on unmet required attributes. It names related tools as prerequisites and next steps (list_marketplaces, list_projects, map_marketplace_attribute), though it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use alternatives.

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

All mcp-server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized around distinct resources (ads, marketplaces, feeds, orders, rules, sources) with clear action verbs, and descriptions explicitly disambiguate near-pairs like get_feed_status vs ad_status or set_feed_filter vs set_feed_attribute_filter. A few similarly named status/action pairs (e.g. ad_status vs get_ad, run_ad_item_action vs run_ad_operation) require careful reading, but overall the purposes are separable.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, set_*, run_*, test_*). Minor deviations like ad_status and marketplace_status (noun-based status tools) and koongo_knowledge break the pattern slightly, but the convention is clearly recognizable and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

At 105 tools, the surface is extreme and far beyond the 50+ threshold, even for a complex e-commerce integration domain. Much of the bloat comes from systematic triplication across ads, marketplaces, and feeds (e.g. three nearly identical map_*_attribute tools, three list_*_items, three get_*_report) that a generic resource parameter could have consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the full lifecycle of feeds, ads, marketplaces, order connections, rules, and imports, including create/read/update/delete, status monitoring, item-level actions, validation, repair, and restore. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete for standalone order connections and limited update capabilities for some entities, but these are workable and do not create dead ends for the core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?