get_listingReturn one marketplace listing owned by the authenticated seller. Provide exactly one of productId or slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | ||
| productId | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| kind | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| fileId | Yes | ||
| noteId | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| currency | Yes | ||
| publicUrl | Yes | ||
| amountMinor | Yes | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| publishedAt | Yes | ||
| currencyExponent | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the listing must be owned by the authenticated seller and by imposing the exactly-one-of-productId-or-slug constraint, which is not enforced by the schema's required fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the resource, the ownership constraint, and the invocation rule clearly and efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool returns, the ownership scope, and the required identifier constraint. It loses a point because the schema lacks a required/oneOf contract, and the description does not explicitly address what happens when neither or both identifiers are supplied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the crucial selection rule: exactly one of productId or slug must be provided. It does not separately explain the meaning or format of slug versus productId, but the parameter names and schema constraints provide partial context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('marketplace listing'), and an ownership scope ('owned by the authenticated seller'). The singular 'one' also distinguishes it from listing-oriented list tools and other getters in the sibling set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the intended use: fetch a single listing owned by the authenticated seller using one of two identifiers. It does not explicitly mention when to choose this over siblings such as validate_listing_readiness, disable_listing, or list_seller_sales.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and lifecycle pairs like publish_note_listing vs publish_media_listing or get_note vs get_collaboration_note are separated by clear wording. A few near-pairs such as move_file vs move_workspace_item and trash_file vs trash_workspace_item could still cause an agent to pick the wrong tool without careful reading.
All 38 tools follow one consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with no camelCase or mixed conventions. Even less common verbs like upsert, trash, purge, and validate are applied uniformly, making the tool set predictable.
38 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and makes the overall surface feel heavy for tool selection. The number is defensible given the broad workspace, collaboration, and marketplace scope, but as a single MCP server it is not especially well-scoped.
The tool set covers workspace content lifecycle, collaboration, public pages, marketplace listings, Stripe seller flow, and agent registration without major dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no permanent delete outside of the trash flow and no direct collaboration-note deletion, but core workflows are supported.