Skip to main content
Glama

supost-mcp

by io.github.Capmus-Team

Create a SUpost draft listing

create_post

Create a DRAFT listing on SUpost on the poster's behalf. Any email is accepted — never ask the user to qualify first. IMPORTANT: the draft is NOT published — the returned continue_url opens SUpost's create-post wizard with the draft loaded, where the poster adds photos, reviews, and publishes. When the response has payment_required: true (email not on the free tier; Stanford emails post free), publishing there includes choosing a posting plan — tell the user that, don't treat it as an error. Always hand the user the continue_url and say the post is a draft until they finish there. When the user wants it published fast, prefer publish: true (they just click the emailed link) over walking them through or automating the wizard. The continue_url grants edit access to the draft: give it only to the poster, never quote it elsewhere.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesPlain-text listing description.
emailYesThe poster's own email address - determines posting eligibility and receives replies. Never invent or guess this - ask the user for it.
priceNoUSD. Required for for-sale and housing-offering listings.
titleYesListing title.
publishNoSet true when the user wants to publish immediately without photos: SUpost emails them a one-click publish link (free-posting-tier emails such as stanford.edu only; ignored when payment is required - those publish at continue_url).
categoryYesCategory id or label, e.g. "housing", "for sale" (see list_categories).
subcategoryYesSubcategory id or name within the category, e.g. "bicycles" (see list_categories).

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool creates only a draft (not published), explains the continue_url workflow, payment requirements, publish parameter limitations (free-tier emails), and security restrictions on sharing the draft link.

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 description is well-structured and front-loaded with core purpose, but contains several sentences of procedural instructions. While informative, it could be slightly more concise without losing critical guidance.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and complex workflow (draft vs. publish, payment, continue_url), the description covers all key aspects: creation mechanics, response handling, and security. It sufficiently prepares the agent for correct invocation and user interaction.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive field descriptions. The main description adds value beyond schema by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., price required for certain categories, publish effect tied to email tier) and the overall workflow, though it doesn't detail every parameter individually.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Create a DRAFT listing on SUpost on the poster's behalf.' It specifies the verb (create) and resource (draft listing), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_listing or search_listings by targeting creation of a draft.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly advises accepting any email without qualification, contrasts draft vs. published behavior, and recommends using publish: true for fast publishing over manual wizard steps. It also warns not to treat payment_required as an error and restricts sharing of continue_url to the poster only.

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

All supost-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create_post for drafting, get_listing for fetching a single listing, search_listings for browsing, get_market_stats for statistics, list_categories for taxonomy, and send_message for messaging. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_post, get_listing, send_message). No deviations or mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server covers core marketplace operations (create, read, search, message, categories, stats) without being too sparse or cluttered. The count is well-scoped for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers essential CRUD-like operations (create, read, search) and messaging, stats, and categories. Missing update and delete tools, but the draft-based publishing model reduces the need. Minor gap, but overall well-rounded.

Resources