Teppek

set_listing_status

Idempotent

Change the lifecycle status of one of the USER'S OWN listings: mark it sold, hide it (take it offline), or re-activate a hidden one. Free — no credit charge. Cannot set moderation states (pending/rejected); re-activating only works on a listing that was previously approved and is currently hidden.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes	sold = mark the listing sold/closed; hidden = temporarily take a live listing offline; active = re-show a listing that is currently hidden (only works if it was previously approved). Cannot set moderation states.
`listing_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`listing`	Yes
`success`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: it is free with no credit charge, cannot set moderation states, and has a specific precondition for re-activation. There is no contradiction.

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?

The description is two dense sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed immediately by cost information, exclusions, and activation preconditions.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers ownership, allowed transitions, disallowed states, cost, and the key edge case for re-activation. The agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The status parameter is well documented in the schema, and the description reinforces the lifecycle semantics. However, listing_id has no description in the schema, and the description does not explain how to obtain or identify the listing ID beyond implying it must be the user's own listing.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: change the lifecycle status of the user's own listing. It enumerates the three specific operations (sold, hidden, active) and explicitly excludes moderation states, which distinguishes it from update_listing and moderation-related tools.

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 scopes the tool to the user's own listings and provides concrete conditions: re-activation only works on previously approved, currently hidden listings. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the constraints make the appropriate use cases clear.

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

All Teppek tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to a resource+action pattern, but search_listings vs semantic_search both retrieve listings and send_message vs reply_to_conversation can both append to an existing thread. The descriptions mostly steer the right choice, but the overlaps are real enough to introduce occasional misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The suite overwhelmingly uses snake_case verb_noun names like create_listing, update_listing, list_conversations, and set_listing_status. The main inconsistency is semantic_search, which breaks the verb-first pattern, and a few names like list_my_listings include a possessive, but there is no chaotic mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools, the set sits just above the typical 3-15 sweet spot, but the marketplace domain justifies separate tools for listing management, search, images, entitlements, and messaging. Most tools earn their place, though send_message and reply_to_conversation are somewhat redundant.

Completeness4/5

The listing lifecycle is well covered: create, read, update, delete, renew, status changes, and image management all exist, supported by two search modes and a complete conversation path. Minor gaps remain, such as no tool to enumerate the supported verticals/roles and limited country-wide browsing outside the career vertical, but agents can work around them.

Resources

Need Help?