Skip to main content
Glama

run_marketplace_item_action

Destructive

Run a listing action on one, several, or all items of a marketplace. DESTRUCTIVE: these actions PUSH TO THE LIVE MARKETPLACE — they submit, relist, remove or otherwise change what buyers see on the channel. Confirm with the user first, then call with confirm:true. Without confirm:true the call returns error 'confirm_required' (HTTP 400) and nothing runs. action is one of: 'submit' (send items to the channel — works even in MANUAL product mode: it forces the targeted item(s) through, so submitting a single item_id is the safe way to test-publish one item and watch the result before doing the rest), 'clean_resubmit' (clear the channel listing and submit again), 'clean' (clear the channel listing), 'remove' (remove/end the listing on the channel), 'force_insert' (force a fresh insert), 'lock' / 'unlock' (lock/unlock items from automatic changes), 'pause' (pause the items), 'repricer_enable' (enable the repricer for the items). Target items with item_ids (an array of itemId from list_marketplace_items) OR all_items:true for every item; provide exactly one. Returns {integrationId, action, status, itemCount, async, message}. status is 'queued' (async — running in the background), 'done' (applied synchronously) or 'not_allowed' (the action is not available for this marketplace; message explains). marketplace_id is from list_marketplaces. project_id is OPTIONAL (inferred for a single-project customer; project_id_required otherwise — then call list_projects).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesThe listing action to run against the live channel.
confirmNo
item_idsNoitemId values (from list_marketplace_items) to act on. Use this OR all_items.
all_itemsNoApply to every item of the marketplace. Use this OR item_ids.
project_idNo
marketplace_idYes

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining that actions push to the LIVE marketplace and change what buyers see. It discloses the confirmation requirement, the HTTP 400 'confirm_required' failure mode, possible statuses (queued, done, not_allowed), and the async vs sync behavior. This fully prepares the agent for side effects.

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 dense and well-structured, with the most important warnings front-loaded ('DESTRUCTIVE... Confirm with the user first'). Each action and parameter is explained with enough context, and no sentence is filler.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, status values, and async semantics. It also covers required and optional parameters, the confirmation gate, and edge cases like 'not_allowed' and MANUAL product mode. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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?

Although schema description coverage is only 50%, the description compensates thoroughly: it explains the confirm flag, the exclusive relationship between item_ids and all_items, the origin and optionality of project_id, the meaning of marketplace_id, and the effect of every action enum value. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a listing action on one, several, or all items of a marketplace.' It lists the exact action values and clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by focusing on item-level listing actions rather than marketplace operations or ad item actions.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to confirm with the user before calling and to pass confirm:true, and documents the error returned without it. It also explains how to target items (item_ids vs all_items), where to source IDs (list_marketplace_items, list_marketplaces), and when to consult list_projects for project_id, plus when using a single item_id is the safe testing approach.

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

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