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 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: lookup_product retrieves a specific product by ID/URL, while search_offers performs an open-ended search across the catalog. No overlap in functionality.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (lookup_product, search_offers), making the naming predictable and intuitive.
With only 2 tools, the server is quite minimal. However, for a focused price comparison service covering search and specific product lookup, the count is acceptable, though additional features like category browsing might be expected.
The tool set covers the core workflows: searching for offers and looking up specific products. However, there are minor gaps such as no tool for listing brands, categories, or comparing multiple products, which could improve completeness.
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?
The description reveals what the tool returns (best price, 30-day stats, offer link) and confirms read-only behavior, aligning with annotations. It adds context beyond annotations by detailing the output scope.
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 to the point, with both German and English versions provided. Key information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant text.
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 existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers inputs and the nature of the output. It mentions the key result components, 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?
The schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description reiterates the constraint of using exactly one and clarifies that the URL is used for ASIN extraction, adding minimal extra 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?
The description clearly states the tool looks up a specific product by ID or URL. It mentions the input sources (ASIN/externalId from search_offers) and distinguishes from sibling search_offers by targeting 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 specifies that exactly one of 'id' or 'url' must be provided, which is a key usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_offers' tool, though the intent is 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it is read-only, uses affiliate links (prices unchanged), and returns price trends and facets. 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 a mix of German and English and is somewhat verbose with redundancy (e.g., 'Read-only' repeated). However, it is well-structured with purpose upfront and key details. Could be more concise without losing clarity.
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 output schema exists, the description richly explains return data (facets, price trend, domain-specific attributes, links). It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what outputs to expect, meeting the complexity of 5 optional parameters.
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 all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose: finding the cheapest current price for sneakers in Germany across Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress. It uses specific verbs like 'findet' and 'Nutze dieses Tool', and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'lookup_product' by focusing on price comparison.
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: when a user asks for price, offer, 'guenstig', 'wo kaufen', or a specific sneaker. It implies the alternative sibling tool for product lookup, providing clear context for selection.
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!