wosneaker.de Preisvergleich
Server Details
Deutscher Preisvergleich für Sneaker – 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 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_offers is for browsing and filtering sneakers, while lookup_product is for retrieving details of a specific product by ID or URL. There is no overlap in functionality.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscore_case: 'search_offers' and 'lookup_product'. The naming is predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal for a price comparison service. While it covers basic search and lookup, typical implementations would include additional tools like category listing or top deals, making the count borderline thin.
The tools cover searching and product lookup, which are core operations. However, missing are features like brand/category browsing, product comparison, or trending deals, leaving notable gaps for a comprehensive price comparison service.
Available Tools
2 toolslookup_productProdukt auf wosneaker.de per ID/URL nachschlagenARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Schlaegt ein konkretes Produkt im aktuellen wosneaker.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 wosneaker.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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) are consistent. Description adds details about URL parameter extracting ASIN and return information (best price, 30-day stats, offer link).
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?
Description is relatively concise (two sentences in German, one in English) with no redundant information, though dual languages slightly increase length.
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 output schema is present, description covers core functionality and constraints. With sibling search_offers, context is fully sufficient for correct tool selection.
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 descriptions are complete (100% coverage). Description adds that id can be externalId from search_offers and that url extracts ASIN, providing extra context.
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?
Description clearly states it looks up a specific product by ID (ASIN/externalId) or URL, and distinguishes from sibling search_offers which likely searches broadly.
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?
States that exactly one of id/url must be provided and mentions the source catalog and return data. Could explicitly contrast with search_offers but implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_offersSneaker in Deutschland zum Bestpreis finden (Amazon, eBay, AliExpress)ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Findet Sneaker zum guenstigsten aktuellen Preis in Deutschland (EUR) ueber Amazon, eBay und AliExpress — Preisvergleich wosneaker.de. Nutze dieses Tool, wenn ein Nutzer nach Preis, Angebot, "guenstig", "wo kaufen" oder einem konkreten Sneaker 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 Sneaker 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?
The description adds value beyond annotations by confirming read-only behavior, detailing affiliate links and unchanged prices, specifying data sources, and describing the return structure (including the 30-day price trend and facets). Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description provides additional behavioral context without contradiction.
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 somewhat verbose, containing both German and English versions that partially repeat information. While it is front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance, it could be more concise without losing essential details.
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 has five parameters and an output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the output fields (title, best price, brand, image, price trend, attributes, links, facets) and provides usage context. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters well. The description adds extra context, such as that the 'brand' parameter expects exact values from 'facets.marke', and the 'query' parameter example. This additional information elevates the score above baseline.
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 Sneakers in Germany across Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress. It specifies the domain (sneakers), currency (EUR), and scope (~150 products). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'lookup_product', which would be helpful for an agent deciding between them.
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 when to use the tool: when a user asks about price, offer, bargain, where to buy, or a specific sneaker. It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or reference the sibling tool as an alternative.
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!