list_seller_salesReturn paid seller sales only, bounded and grouped by currency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sales | Yes | ||
| totals | Yes | ||
| nextCursor | 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 establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it returns only paid sales, applies bounds, and groups results by currency. This meaningfully clarifies what the operation does without contradicting the annotations.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: 'paid', 'bounded', and 'grouped by currency' all convey meaningful behavioral details.
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 output schema exists and the annotations already cover safety and idempotency, the description covers the essential semantics of the operation. The main gap is that cursor-based pagination behavior is not described, but the schema and output schema compensate for much of the missing context.
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%, and the description does not explain the limit or cursor parameters. The word 'bounded' hints at limit semantics but does not clarify the parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from bare schema constraints.
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 states a specific verb ('return'), a specific resource ('seller sales'), and crucial scoping ('paid seller sales only'). It also adds distinguishing behavior ('bounded and grouped by currency'), which sets it apart from sibling list tools like list_sellable_content and list_public_pages.
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 phrase 'paid seller sales only' implies when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions such as unpaid sales. Usage context is present but left largely to inference.
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.