Mark a Cyclesite listing as sold (optionally with the final sale price). Requires OAuth scope listings:manage. Example: 'mark my Trek Domane as sold for £1,750'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listingId | Yes | ||
| salePriceGbp | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal that this is destructive and not read-only. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the required OAuth scope and clarifying that a final sale price is optional. It does not detail irreversible effects, but the destructiveHint annotation covers the main behavioral risk.
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 compact and well-structured: action first, then authorization requirement, then a natural-language example. Every sentence earns its place and the example helps the agent understand how to invoke the 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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description is mostly complete. It includes auth requirement, optional price behavior, and an example. It lacks guidance on how listingId should be resolved or when to prefer this over reserve-like tools, but these are minor for this operation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that salePriceGbp is optional and represents the final sale price, corroborated by the £1,750 example. However, listingId semantics are left implicit, and no explicit parameter mapping or format guidance is given.
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 action and resource: 'Mark a Cyclesite listing as sold' with an optional final sale price. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like reserve_listing or publish_listing, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate those alternatives.
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 implies usage through the example and the OAuth scope requirement, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related listing-management tools such as reserve_listing or publish_listing. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
