SuperCatch

Inspect a saved draft plan

supercatch_get_listing_draft_plan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect the exact frozen draft update without saving or executing it. Inspect an existing frozen draft plan by its exact connection-bound plan ID. No arbitrary photo URLs, chat-attachment ingestion, new catalog rows, grading or authenticity verification, price, inventory or publication changes. The requested frozen draft plan with its listing/catalog references and expiry. Private photo and card-data snapshots stay server-side; reading the plan does not reassess current draft eligibility. Requires OAuth store:listings:drafts:write consent. Requires separate store:listings:drafts:write consent and current EDIT_LISTINGS permission on an approved owned store. This call only reads the existing plan. Applying it requires a separate execute call and any required photo-write consent. Read-only inspection of an existing plan. Missing or foreign plans, failed stored-plan integrity checks and revoked authority return errors. Reading an expired plan does not renew its execution authority.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "plan_id": "draft-plan-id"
    },
    "name": "supercatch_get_listing_draft_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan_id`	Yes	Exact owned connection-bound plan ID returned by supercatch_prepare_listing_draft.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds substantial new behavior: OAuth scope store:listings:drafts:write plus EDIT_LISTINGS permission on an approved owned store, error conditions for missing/foreign plans and failed integrity checks, server-side retention of photo/card snapshots, no re-assessment of draft eligibility, and the fact that reading an expired plan does not renew execution authority.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The read-only nature is asserted at least four times ('without saving or executing it', 'This call only reads the existing plan', 'Read-only inspection of an existing plan', 'reading the plan does not reassess'), and the consent requirement is stated twice in near-duplicate sentences. The information is front-loaded, but a large share of sentences do not earn their place.

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?

With an output schema and rich annotations already present, the description covers the remaining agent-relevant facts: authorization scopes, permission prerequisites, error cases, and the expiry/authority caveat. The only weakness is the slightly tangled duplicate consent wording, which could leave an agent unsure whether one or two scopes are required.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by stressing the ID must be the 'exact connection-bound plan ID' and by implying that foreign or unowned IDs will error, which the schema alone does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Inspect an existing frozen draft plan by its exact connection-bound plan ID') and implicitly separates it from the execute path. However, the opening three sentences restate the same read-only inspection idea, which dilutes rather than sharpens the purpose statement.

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 clearly bounds the use case ('without saving or executing it', 'This call only reads the existing plan') and points to the alternative ('Applying it requires a separate execute call'), which maps to supercatch_execute_listing_draft. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when…' phrasing, but the read-vs-apply split is unambiguous.

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

All SuperCatch 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?