favoritos_anadirGuarda una subasta en tus favoritos. Requiere cuenta (scope favoritos:write). Radar y Starter solo pueden guardar subastas activas (fav.historico es Pro+).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Identificador público de la subasta (10 caracteres) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| cta | No | ||
| favorito | Yes | ||
| disclosure | No |
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 convey idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: authentication requirements, required OAuth scope, and plan-based restrictions on which subastas can be saved. No contradiction with annotations is present.
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?
Two compact sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently packs authentication, scope, and plan restrictions.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers the remaining critical context: auth, scope, and plan-based feature gating. Nothing essential is missing.
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?
The input schema fully documents the single parameter `id` with type, pattern, and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.
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 the specific action and resource: 'Guarda una subasta en tus favoritos.' The verb 'guarda' and the target 'favoritos' clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like favoritos_listar and favoritos_quitar.
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 provides clear usage conditions: an account is required, the scope `favoritos:write` is needed, and plan limitations are specified ('Radar y Starter solo pueden guardar subastas activas'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for related operations, but the context is clear enough.
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 are grouped into recognizable clusters (alertas, checkout, favoritos, notas), but several retrieval/report tools overlap: `fetch` and `subasta` both expose an auction record, and `analisis_subasta` and `informe` both provide analysis. The descriptions give enough distinguishing detail, but an agent must read closely to avoid misselection.
Naming mixes Spanish and English, and mixes conventions: `alertas_crear` and `buscar_subastas` are Spanish compound names, `create_checkout`/`cancel_checkout` are English verb_noun, while `fetch`, `search`, `subasta` and `informe` are bare words. There is internal consistency within clusters, but no coherent pattern across the full toolset.
32 tools is a large, heavy surface for one MCP server, exceeding the 25+ threshold where consolidation is usually needed. Many tools earn their place given the broad platform, but the multiple search/retrieval variants and five checkout lifecycle tools could be streamlined.
The server covers the core domain thoroughly: auction search/retrieval, viability reports, alerts, favorites, registry notes, market statistics, plans/account, and UCP checkout all have lifecycle coverage. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit report-purchase history and some payment steps being delegated to a browser, but agents can complete most workflows.