Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

agent-tools (x402 + MCP + A2A directory)

by io.github.AgentTools-Cloud
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

edit_owned_listing

DestructiveIdempotent

Edit only metadata covered by your verified claim, with the public audit trail.

An endpoint change requires verified control of the exact destination or
its whole host and clears measurements tied to the old primary endpoint.

Args:
    kind: Listing type: x402, mcp, or a2a.
    slug: Slug of the listing you are authorized to edit.
    fields: Editable fields to change; measured fields are rejected.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "edit_owned_listing"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesListing type: x402, mcp, or a2a.
slugYesSlug of the listing you are authorized to edit.
fieldsYesEditable fields to change; measured fields are rejected.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes beyond them by disclosing the specific consequence: an endpoint change requires verified control of the destination or its whole host and 'clears measurements tied to the old primary endpoint'. The public audit trail is also behavior the annotations cannot convey. It stops short of stating whether the clearing is reversible or how permission failures surface.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The scope constraint is front-loaded, followed by a single high-value behavioral sentence. The Args section is low-value duplication of the schema descriptions, which costs a bit of tightness but not enough to undermine the structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, nested-payload mutation with an output schema available, the definition covers the authorization precondition, the destructive side effect, and the rejection of measured fields. It leaves which fields count as 'measured' undefined, but the return shape is covered by the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the Args block restates the schema text almost verbatim (kind, slug, fields), adding no new meaning. The one genuine addition is the rule that endpoint changes require verified control of the destination or its host, which constrains acceptable values for the opaque 'fields' object.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit only metadata covered by your verified claim', and adds the audit-trail framing. This distinguishes it from the read-side sibling get_owned_listing without naming it explicitly, so the boundary is inferable but not stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The precondition ('only metadata covered by your verified claim') tells the agent when this tool is legal to call, which is useful gating. However, it never names an alternative path such as claim_service_url for listings not yet claimed, nor does it state explicitly what to do when the claim check fails.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All agent-tools (x402 + MCP + A2A directory) toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources