mcp-server

set_feed_settings

Idempotent

Set a feed's general output settings: SHIPPING cost and STOCK. Send shipping and/or stock; within each object only the keys you include change (omitted keys are left as-is). shipping: {dependent_attribute (a source attribute code from list_source_attributes the cost depends on, e.g. weight/price — '' clears it), method_name (free text), intervals (the cost table — REPLACES the whole set; each row {from, to, cost} numeric with 0 <= from <= to <= 1000000 and cost >= 0; intervals:[] clears all rows)}. stock: {in_value (the value exported when a product is In stock), out_value (the value when Out of stock), availability_attribute (a source attribute code exported as availability when out of stock — '' clears it)}. Provide at least one of shipping / stock. To rename the feed use update_feed (the feed name is not set here). SAVE-ONLY: persists and bumps the revision but does NOT regenerate the feed — call export_feed afterwards. Read the current values from get_feed (settings). Returns {feedId, status, changed:[...], reason, revisionBefore, revisionAfter}; status is 'updated' | 'no_changes' | 'rejected' (reason: invalid_value | unknown_source_attribute | invalid_interval). project_id is OPTIONAL (inferred for a single-project customer).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`stock`	No	Stock settings; only the keys you send change.
`feed_id`	Yes
`shipping`	No	Shipping cost settings; only the keys you send change.
`project_id`	No

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals SAVE-ONLY behavior, revision bumping, non-regeneration of the feed, and the need to call export_feed. It also names the return statuses and rejection reasons, adding meaningful runtime behavior that the annotations do not cover. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true is present.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose is front-loaded, then partial semantics, object-level details, alternatives, save-only caveat, and return shape. There is no filler for a tool with two nested objects and a non-obvious side-effect profile.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape and status/reason enums. It also covers the revision side effects, follow-up export_feed call, and where to read current settings and rename the feed, making the tool self-contained enough to invoke correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%, and the description compensates fully: it explains partial object updates, intervals replacement and clearing, '' clearing semantics for dependent_attribute/availability_attribute, numeric interval constraints, and the optional project_id. It adds value beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 'Set a feed's general output settings: SHIPPING cost and STOCK', a specific verb plus resource and scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from update_feed ('To rename the feed use update_feed') and export_feed, so an agent can separate it from nearby siblings.

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 gives explicit when/how guidance: 'Provide at least one of shipping / stock', states the partial-update behavior, and names alternatives ('To rename the feed use update_feed', 'call export_feed afterwards', 'Read the current values from get_feed'). This is clear routing and prerequisite context.

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?