dm-drogerie-markt
Server Details
Real-time product data, semantic search and more from dm-drogerie markt, Europe's leading drugstore.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: searchProducts handles searching/finding products by various criteria, while getProductDetails retrieves detailed ingredient and attribute information for specific product IDs. They cross-reference each other, eliminating ambiguity.
Both tool names use a consistent camelCase verbNoun pattern (getProductDetails, searchProducts), which is predictable and clear.
With only two tools, the server is minimal but covers the essential workflow of searching and retrieving product details. The tool count is slightly low for a general product information server, but still reasonable given the focused scope.
The tool surface provides a complete end-to-end workflow: search for products, then get detailed attributes. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of retrieving dm-drogerie markt product information.
Available Tools
2 toolsgetProductDetailsGet detailed Product InformationARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Retrieve detailed product information for dm-drogeriemarkt products.
USE WHEN: ingredients, nutrition facts, allergens, usage instructions, warnings, hazard info, product URLs/images
INPUT: DANs (7 digits, preferred) and/or GTINs (8-14 digits) multiple products can be requested at once min 1 / max 50. Use search tool first if only product name is known.
OUTPUT: TOON format (compact YAML-like). Fields: name, brand, description, ingredients, nutrition, allergens, usage, warnings, URLs, images. found=false for unresolved IDs.
NOT FOR: prices, availability, stock, reviews, recommendations
ERRORS: validation error if >50 or no identifiers
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dans | No | DANs (exactly 7 digits, preferred over GTIN) | |
| gtins | No | GTINs (8-14 digits) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, repeatable operations. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies input validation rules (min 1/max 50 identifiers, validation errors), output format (TOON format), and handling of unresolved IDs (found=false). No contradictions with annotations exist.
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 well-structured with clear sections (USE WHEN, INPUT, OUTPUT, NOT FOR, ERRORS) and front-loaded key information. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the formatting with all-caps section headers could be slightly more polished. Every sentence serves a purpose in guiding tool usage.
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 tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations, and lack of output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, input constraints, output format, exclusions, and error conditions. The agent has all necessary context to invoke this tool correctly without needing an output schema.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (dans and gtins) with their types and digit constraints. The description adds minimal extra semantics: it clarifies that multiple products can be requested (1-50) and that DANs are preferred over GTINs, but doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema's thorough documentation.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Retrieve detailed product information') and resource ('dm-drogeriemarkt products'), distinguishing it from the sibling searchProducts tool. It provides concrete examples of what information is retrieved (ingredients, nutrition facts, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly includes 'USE WHEN' and 'NOT FOR' sections that specify when to use this tool (for detailed product info like ingredients, allergens) versus when not to use it (for prices, availability, reviews). It also references the alternative 'search tool' when only product names are known, providing clear guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchProductssearchProductsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search for products available in the German dm-drogerie market (online and local stores).
USE WHEN: searching dm-drogerie products by name, category, ingredient, property, or any
natural language query (any language supported). Often answers questions about
ingredients and properties directly. Covers: dm-drogerie markt brands, make-up,
skincare, perfume, hair, health, nutrition, baby & child, household, home & living,
photo, and pets.
OUTPUT: Returns a maximum of 15 products. GTIN, DAN, brand, title, details, category,
price, appLink (direct product URL), description, highlights/USPs, and extensive
attributes including:
- Dietary/Allergen: vegan, vegetarian, bio, glutenFree, lactoseFree, sugarFree,
nutFree, soyFree
- Cosmetic Ingredients: fragranceFree, alcoholFree, parabenFree, sulfateFree,
preservativeFree, dyeFree, oilFree, siliconeFree, naturalCosmetics
- Product Properties: waterproof, new, limitedEdition, sellout, onlineOnly,
exclusiveDm, dmBrand, purchasable
NOT FOR: nutritional information (calories, protein, carbs, fats), complete allergen
lists, full ingredient details. For these, use 'getProductDetails' tool with
the GTINs or DANs.
LIMITATIONS: Only make claims based on EXPLICITLY stated product highlights/descriptions.
Do NOT extrapolate or assume properties not mentioned in the results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search query for dm-drogerie products |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: max 15 products, output fields, limitations on extrapolation. No contradiction with readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections (USE WHEN, OUTPUT, NOT FOR, LIMITATIONS). Slightly verbose but every sentence is informative.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, returns, and its limitations. No gaps for the complexity level.
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 single query parameter's description is minimal in schema, but description elaborates: supports natural language in any language, including name, category, ingredient, property. This adds significant meaning.
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?
Clearly states it searches dm-drogerie products by name, category, ingredient, etc., distinguishing it from getProductDetails which provides detailed info.
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?
Explicitly provides USE WHEN scenarios, lists what it is NOT for (nutritional info, full allergens), and directs to alternative getProductDetails tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!