Skip to main content
Glama

Merchant Catalog Acceptance

Server Details

Deterministic acceptance report for a supplied product catalog: validates price/currency/availabi...

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Available Tools

1 tool
merchant_catalog_acceptanceA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Deterministic acceptance report for a supplied product catalog: validates price/currency/availability/URL formatting, GS1 GTIN checksums, and flags duplicate SKUs, duplicate GTINs, and grouped-variant collisions. Checks only the structured rows given in the request - no network calls, no brand or marketplace certification, no ISO 4217 currency list. Price: 0.05 USDC per completed bounded job on Base.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
productsYes
required_attributesNoOptional list of attribute keys that every row must supply in its attributes map.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior: deterministic, no network calls, no certification, pricing (0.05 USDC per job), and that invalid rows are reported as defects rather than rejected. It doesn't detail pagination or exact output shape, but no output schema exists and the deterministic/bounded-job details are useful.

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?

Three dense sentences: first states core function, second lists exclusions, third gives pricing. Front-loaded with the main verb and resource, no wasted words, every sentence adds distinct value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Complete for a deterministic validation tool: it defines what is checked, what is not checked, how bad rows are handled (reported as defects), and the cost. Given no output schema, a bit more detail about return structure could help, but the description already tells the agent what to expect (acceptance report) and the behavioral boundaries are clear.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is low (50% across 2 params are described; the products array items are documented via per-property descriptions). The description summarizes validation scope but does not restate field-level constraints; the schema's per-field descriptions carry the bulk. The description adds the fact that numeric price values are reported as defects, which is extra context beyond the schema, but not enough to raise above baseline 3.

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 ('validates', 'flags', 'checks') on a specific resource ('supplied product catalog') and enumerates exact validations (GTIN checksums, price/currency/availability formats, duplicate SKU/GTIN, grouped-variant collisions). It clearly distinguishes itself from any certification/network-check tool by explicitly listing what it does NOT do.

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 clearly states scope: 'Checks only the structured rows given in the request - no network calls, no brand or marketplace certification, no ISO 4217 currency list.' This gives strong when-to-use/not-use context. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X' because no sibling tools are provided.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedmerchant_catalog_acceptance

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Validates Excel (.xlsx) workbooks against reviewed, lockable acceptance contracts, catching errors and outputting structured issues that agents can repair.
    1
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Agent-native Amazon catalog auditing tool that enables AI agents to scan, check, and diff Category Listing Reports and live Seller Central listings via MCP tools.
    13
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Validates electronic invoices (XRechnung, ZUGFeRD, Factur-X, Peppol BIS, etc.) against authority-pinned rules and explains failures.
    2
    21
    MIT
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only a single tool, there is no possibility of selecting among overlapping tools. The tool's purpose is clearly and uniquely defined within the server.

Naming Consistency5/5

The tool name 'merchant_catalog_acceptance' is a clear, descriptive snake_case phrase that matches the server name. Despite lacking a verb prefix, consistency is trivially satisfied with just one tool.

Tool Count3/5

A single tool is at the thin end of the typical tool count range. While it fully covers the server's narrow purpose, the server offers no additional operations or flexibility, making it feel minimal.

Completeness5/5

For its stated scope—validating catalog structured rows—the tool covers all relevant checks: price, currency, availability, URL formatting, GTIN checksums, duplicate SKUs/GTINs, and variant collisions. It explicitly documents exclusions, so there are no hidden dead ends.

Resources