wogrill.de Preisvergleich
Server Details
Deutscher Preisvergleich für Grills – Bestpreis-Suche (read-only).
- 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 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools serve clearly distinct purposes: one for searching/filtering products, the other for looking up a specific product by ID or URL. No functional overlap exists.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (search_offers, lookup_product) using lowercase with underscores. The naming is uniform and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the set is slightly below the typical 3-15 range, but given the focused domain of a single product category (grills), this minimal surface is reasonable and avoids bloat.
The tools cover the full read lifecycle: searching with filters and looking up detailed product information. For a read-only price comparison service, there are no missing operations.
Available Tools
2 toolslookup_productProdukt auf wogrill.de per ID/URL nachschlagenARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Schlaegt ein konkretes Produkt im aktuellen wogrill.de-Katalog per Produkt-ID (Amazon-ASIN bzw. externalId aus search_offers) ODER per Amazon-Produkt-URL nach. Liefert Bestpreis, 30-Tage-Preisstatistik und den Angebots-Link. Genau eines der Felder id/url angeben. Looks up a specific product in the wogrill.de catalog by ID (ASIN/externalId) or Amazon product URL (read-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Produkt-ID: Amazon-ASIN oder externalId. | |
| url | No | Amazon-Produkt-URL (z.B. https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0ABC123DE) — die ASIN wird extrahiert. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| site | No | |
| count | Yes | |
| query | No | |
| facets | No | Verfuegbare Filter-Werte (Marke + domain-spezifische Attribute) mit Trefferzahlen — zum gezielten Nachfiltern via query/brand/minPrice/maxPrice. |
| products | Yes | |
| updatedAt | No | |
| disclosure | No | |
| catalogVersion | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that it is read-only and returns specific data (best price, statistics). No contradictions. Adds context beyond annotations.
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 concise and front-loaded with key information. It appears in two languages which is slightly redundant but still efficient. The structure is clear and logical.
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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on input constraints and return highlights. It mentions key return fields (best price, statistics, link), making it complete for a lookup tool.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds context that the ID is from search_offers and the URL is an Amazon product URL, and reiterates the mutual exclusivity. This adds value beyond the schema.
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 tool looks up a specific product by ID or URL, and specifies what it returns (best price, 30-day statistics, offer link). It distinguishes from the sibling search_offers by focusing on a single product.
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 says to provide exactly one of id/url and notes that the ID comes from search_offers. It implies when to use (for a single product lookup) but does not explicitly state when not to use, though the sibling tool provides contrast.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_offersGrills in Deutschland zum Bestpreis finden (Amazon, eBay, AliExpress)ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Findet Grills zum guenstigsten aktuellen Preis in Deutschland (EUR) ueber Amazon, eBay und AliExpress — Preisvergleich wogrill.de. Nutze dieses Tool, wenn ein Nutzer nach Preis, Angebot, "guenstig", "wo kaufen" oder einem konkreten Grill fragt. Durchsucht ~150 Produkte, filterbar per Suchbegriff, Marke und Preisspanne. Liefert je Produkt: Titel, Bestpreis, Marke, Bild, 30-Tage-Preistrend (priceStats.isLowest30d = aktuell guenstigster Stand), domain-spezifische Attribute (attributes, z.B. Leistung/Speicher/Farbe), einen direkten Kauf-Link (url) und eine zitierfaehige Produktseite (detailUrl). Die Antwort enthaelt zusaetzlich facets (verfuegbare Filterwerte) zum Verfeinern. Read-only, Kauf beim verlinkten Haendler (Affiliate, Preis unveraendert). Finds the cheapest current price in Germany for Grills across Amazon, eBay and AliExpress; returns best price, price trend, filter attributes and a direct link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand | No | Auf eine Marke einschraenken (exakter Wert aus facets.marke, z.B. "Nike"). | |
| limit | No | Maximale Anzahl Ergebnisse (Default 24, max 100). | |
| query | No | Suchbegriff, z.B. Modell/Marke/Eigenschaft ("Balkonkraftwerk 800W", "iPhone 15 schwarz"). Optional. | |
| maxPrice | No | Hoechstpreis in EUR (optional). | |
| minPrice | No | Mindestpreis in EUR (optional). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| site | No | |
| count | Yes | |
| query | No | |
| facets | No | Verfuegbare Filter-Werte (Marke + domain-spezifische Attribute) mit Trefferzahlen — zum gezielten Nachfiltern via query/brand/minPrice/maxPrice. |
| products | Yes | |
| updatedAt | No | |
| disclosure | No | |
| catalogVersion | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: it's an affiliate link tool, returns facets, 30-day price trend, and domain-specific attributes. No contradictions.
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 lengthy (both German and English) but well-structured: purpose, usage trigger, tool capabilities, output details, and note on read-only. It could be more concise; some redundancy exists, e.g., repeating the affiliate note.
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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it still mentions key fields like priceStats, facets, and detailUrl. It covers purpose, behavioral notes, and parameter filtering adequately, making it complete for a search tool with good annotations.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter; it only repeats the field names and basic intent.
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 tool finds the cheapest current price for Grills in Germany across multiple platforms, using a specific verb and resource. However, there is ambiguity: the title and opening line restrict to Grills, but the query parameter allows any product search, which may confuse agents about the true scope.
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 states when to use the tool (e.g., user asks for price, offer, cheap, where to buy, or a specific grill). It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools like lookup_product, which is a minor gap.
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!