Skip to main content
Glama

Find free stuff to flip near a ZIP

find_free_stuff
Read-only

Returns free local finds near a US ZIP code, ranked by estimated resale value and profit. New connectors get 5 full-feed queries with source links free before Pro gating kicks in.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "find_free_stuff"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
zipNo5-digit US ZIP to search near. Omit to use the user's saved home ZIP.
limitNoMax results (default 15).
categoryNoOptional category filter, e.g. 'furniture', 'electronics', 'tools'.
min_profitNoOnly return finds with estimated profit >= this many USD.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive semantics, so the description's real contribution is the quota disclosure: five free full-feed queries with source links before Pro gating. That is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from the schema. It stops short of describing result freshness, search radius, or what happens when the quota is exhausted (error vs. degraded results).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the quota caveat. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

All four optional parameters are documented and there is no output schema to explain, so the description only needs to convey purpose, ranking, and cost model — which it does. Minor gaps: result radius, data freshness, and behavior at the Pro gate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with zip, limit, category, and min_profit all documented including defaults and the home-ZIP fallback. The description adds nothing param-specific beyond confirming ZIP-based search and profit ranking, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("returns free local finds near a US ZIP code") plus the ranking logic (estimated resale value and profit). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like area_summary or my_vault, though it never explicitly names or contrasts them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as area_summary for aggregate views, and no exclusions. The only conditional sentence concerns quota gating, not task selection, so the agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.