MappaIQ

Report Marketplace listing

report_listing

Report a Marketplace listing (from search_public_listings) that is off the market, wrong, not this Broker's listing (for example another Account's copy of the user's own listing), or spam. Use it only when the user asks to report. One report per listing per account; counts as 1 search against the Marketplace limit. The listing's broker is told the reason, never who reported. Reports from 3 accounts hide the listing until MappaIQ reviews it.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Listing id from search_public_listings.
`note`	No	Optional detail for MappaIQ's review, max 500 characters. Not sent to the listing's broker.
`reason`	Yes
`context`	Yes	Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as "a user", "the customer", or "an account". Example: "Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution."
`llm_model`	Yes	The exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. "claude-opus-4-8", "gpt-5.2"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass "unknown" — never guess.
`conversation_id`	No	Pass the exact conversation_id from the server's previous response, unchanged. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it. Keep passing the same conversation_id for the rest of the conversation, including after later user messages or on a different task; do not reset it when the user starts a new request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: one report per listing per account, a cost of 1 search against the Marketplace limit, broker notification of the reason but not the reporter's identity, and the consequence that 3 account reports hide the listing pending review. These are effects an agent could not derive from the schema or 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?

Four sentences, each front-loading the most decision-relevant information: what to report, when to use it, the rate/account constraints, and the downstream effects. No filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description covers the critical behavioral envelope: preconditions, rate limits, privacy of the reporter, and the state change triggered by multiple reports. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 description coverage is 83%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds value by explaining the reason categories in prose (off the market, wrong, not this Broker's listing, spam) and clarifying that only the reason, not the reporter, reaches the broker.

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 states a specific verb and resource (report a Marketplace listing) plus the precise scope of valid targets: off-market, wrong, not this Broker's listing, or spam. It names the sibling tool it depends on (search_public_listings) and is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like get_public_listing or search_public_listings.

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?

It gives an explicit activation condition ('Use it only when the user asks to report') and enumerates the qualifying listing states. It does not name an alternative tool or exclusion path beyond that, so it is clear context without full when-not/alternative routing.

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

All MappaIQ 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?