mcp-server

set_marketplace_auto_mode

Destructive

Switch a marketplace to AUTOMATIC product mode: every matching product is published to the LIVE marketplace and kept in sync, and a submission is queued right away. Use this when the user wants ongoing automatic publishing. Each call queues the submission again, even when already automatic — do not retry blindly. Returns {integrationId, action:'set_product_mode', status, kind, editUrl, message}. Needs confirm:true after the user agrees. marketplace_id is from list_marketplaces. project_id is OPTIONAL (inferred for a single-project customer; project_id_required otherwise — then call list_projects).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "marketplace_id": "<marketplace_id>"
    },
    "name": "set_marketplace_auto_mode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	true only after the user approved; without it the call returns confirm_required and nothing runs.
`project_id`	No
`marketplace_id`	Yes	integrationId of the marketplace (from list_marketplaces).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description explains WHY: each call re-queues a submission even when already automatic, so retries are harmful. It also discloses the confirm gate outcome and the exact response shape ({integrationId, action, status, kind, editUrl, message}), which annotations cannot convey.

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 primary behavior is front-loaded and every subsequent clause carries distinct operational value (retry warning, return contract, consent gate, parameter sourcing). Dense semicolon packing, but there is no filler sentence to cut.

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 non-idempotent, destructive mutation with only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers outcome, consent requirement, retry semantics, return payload, and how to obtain every parameter value. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 67% and the undocumented parameter (project_id) is exactly the one the description explains: optional, inferred for single-project customers, otherwise requires list_projects after a project_id_required response. marketplace_id and confirm are only restated from the schema, so this earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact resulting state: switching a marketplace to AUTOMATIC mode, publishing all matching products live and keeping them in sync. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like set_marketplace_manual_mode, pause_marketplace, or submit_marketplace_items.

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?

Gives an explicit selection criterion ('when the user wants ongoing automatic publishing'), a caution against blind retries, a hard prerequisite ('Needs confirm:true after the user agrees'), and prerequisite lookups (list_marketplaces, and list_projects when project_id_required is returned). Almost nothing is left to inference.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?