XFish Horgász Webáruház
Server Details
XFish.hu Hungarian fishing tackle webshop. Search 90000+ products by category, brand, price.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- 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 3.8/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: categories, manufacturers, product details, and search. No overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., get_categories, search_products).
Four tools is an appropriate scope for a read-only product catalog API, covering all essential query operations without being too many or too few.
The set covers product browsing and search well, but lacks a direct method to list all products (e.g., by category) without using search, which is a minor gap.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_categoriesAInspect
Kategóriák listázása az XFish.hu webáruházból. Visszaadja a kategóriafát: ID, név, szülő, termékszám.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parent_id | No | Szülő kategória ID (0 = legfelső szint) | |
| webshop_id | No | Bolt ID: 0=Horgász, 1=Játék, 2=Kisállat, 3=Barkács (alapértelmezett: 0) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects or constraints. It only states it returns a category tree, omitting information on idempotency, authentication, or rate limits.
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?
Two sentences, both directly informative with no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and output.
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?
The description covers what the tool returns (category tree fields) without an output schema. It lacks details on pagination or ordering, but for a simple listing this is adequate.
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% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it falls at baseline 3.
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 lists categories from XFish.hu and returns a category tree with specified fields (ID, name, parent, product count). It is distinct from sibling tools which deal with manufacturers, product details, or search.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool names provide some context, but the description itself lacks direct usage instructions or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_manufacturersAInspect
Gyártók/márkák listázása az XFish.hu webáruházból. Visszaadja a gyártó ID-kat, amelyek a search_products manufacturer_id paraméteréhez szükségesek.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Gyártónév szűrés (opcionális, pl: "shimano", "daiwa") | |
| webshop_id | No | Bolt ID: 0=Horgász, 1=Játék, 2=Kisállat, 3=Barkács (alapértelmezett: 0) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions it lists manufacturers but lacks details like pagination, ordering, limited results, or read-only nature. Adequate but could be more transparent.
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?
Two concise sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second explains the use of output for another tool.
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?
No output schema, so description should cover return structure. It states returns manufacturer IDs but not format (e.g., list of objects). Lacks pagination or size limits. Mostly complete for a simple list 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds valuable context by linking output to search_products, beyond schema. No extra parameter details beyond schema, but sufficient.
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?
Clear verb (list) and resource (manufacturers/brands) with explicit purpose: returns IDs needed for search_products. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_categories by linking to its output usage.
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 states that output (manufacturer IDs) are used for search_products manufacturer_id parameter, providing context. No explicit when-not-to-use, but clarity on integration with sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_product_detailsBInspect
Egy adott termék részletes adatainak lekérdezése: név, ár, leírás, készlet, kép, gyártó, cikkszám.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | Termék ID (a search_products által visszaadott id mező) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations. Description lists returned fields but omits side effects, auth, rate limits, or error handling.
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?
Single Hungarian sentence is efficient, but lacks structure like headings or formatting.
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?
Adequate for simple single-param tool, but missing return format and error scenarios.
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 100% of params with description referencing search_products; description adds no extra semantics.
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 gets detailed product data (name, price, etc.) and distinct from siblings get_categories, get_manufacturers, search_products.
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?
Implied usage via param referencing search_products, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_productsAInspect
Termékkereső az XFish.hu horgász webáruházban. Keresés szöveg, kategória, gyártó, márka, ár és készlet alapján. Magyar és angol keresés is működik.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Rendezés: relevance=releváns, price_asc=legolcsóbb, price_desc=legdrágább, name_asc=névsor | relevance |
| brand | No | Márkanév szűrő (pl: "Shimano", "Daiwa", "Fox"). Pontos gyártóra szűr. Ha a query tartalmazza a márkát, az automatikusan felismeri. | |
| limit | No | Találatok száma (1-50, alapértelmezett: 10) | |
| query | No | Keresőkifejezés — a termék típusa (pl: "feeder bot", "bojli 20mm", "pergető orsó"). Ha a brand-et is megadod, a query csak a típust tartalmazza. | |
| max_price | No | Maximum bruttó ár (Ft) | |
| min_price | No | Minimum bruttó ár (Ft) | |
| webshop_id | No | Bolt ID: 0=Horgász, 1=Játék, 2=Kisállat, 3=Barkács (alapértelmezett: 0) | |
| category_id | No | Kategória ID szűrés (a get_categories tool-ból kapott ID) | |
| in_stock_only | No | Csak raktáron lévő termékek (alapértelmezett: igen) | |
| manufacturer_id | No | Gyártó ID szűrés (a get_manufacturers tool-ból kapott ID) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description reveals automatic brand recognition from query, but does not mention rate limits, default search behavior when query is empty, or pagination behavior despite the limit parameter. Some behavioral context is given but not fully comprehensive.
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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more structured, but is efficient.
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?
With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively brief. It doesn't explain return format, error handling, or pagination fully. Given sibling tools, it provides basic context but lacks depth for a complex search 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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline 3. Description adds value by noting that Hungarian and English search works and advising that if brand is specified, query should only contain the type. This goes 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 searches products in a specific webshop, listing search dimensions (text, category, manufacturer, brand, price, stock). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_categories and get_manufacturers by being the primary search tool.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool over siblings. While it mentions Hungarian and English support, it doesn't suggest alternatives for specific tasks like retrieving product details or browsing categories.
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!