MCP CPG Knowledge Graph
Server Details
BPC Agentic Commerce Infra
- 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
Score is being calculated. Check back soon.
Available Tools
14 toolscheck_eligibilityInspect
Check whether a GTIN can ship to a specific retailer banner in a country.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gtin | Yes | ||
| banner | Yes | ||
| country_iso | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
count_gtin_coverageBInspect
Global coverage statistics: GTINs, nodes, makers (supply), retailers (demand).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. For a read-only statistics tool, this is a minor gap, but the description carries the full burden and fails to provide any behavioral context.
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 extremely concise (one line), front-loading key information. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating items with bullets) but remains efficient and easy to scan. No wasted words.
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 tool has no parameters but has an output schema (not shown), the description should clarify what the output contains: counts, averages, percentages? It lists categories but not the metric type. More detail on the return structure would improve completeness.
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?
There are no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage). The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and no additional parameter explanation is required. Baseline 4 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 it provides 'Global coverage statistics' for GTINs, nodes, makers, and retailers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_makers or resolve_gtin, which deal with specific lookups rather than aggregate stats. A specific verb like 'counts' or 'returns' would strengthen clarity, but the purpose is clear.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits with sibling tools like node_market or check_eligibility. The context is entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_makersInspect
Global cross-node maker (supply) search. Filter by segment / region / node / has_website.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| segment | No | ||
| has_website | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
find_retailersInspect
Global cross-node retailer (demand) search. Filter by region / node / parent_banner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| parent_banner | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
get_kernelAInspect
SPARKS completeness tier for a brand in a market: 100 = resolvable (a real pack/size record is held) . 8 = registered (brand known, pack/size pending) . 'floor' = STANDARD default (no brand-specific record). Returns the stored tier flag — do NOT compute a score. Never returns a pack/size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | ||
| brand | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a stored flag (not computed) and clarifies what values mean. However, it does not address side effects, permissions, or data freshness.
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 (two sentences) but uses a list-like format that may be awkward. It is front-loaded but could be more structured.
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 presence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. However, it lacks explanation of the 'node' parameter and could benefit from more context on when tiers apply.
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 0%, but the description fails to explain the 'node' parameter (presumably market). It only mentions 'brand' in the tier definition. This is insufficient given no schema descriptions.
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 returns the SPARKS completeness tier for a brand in a market, with explicit tier definitions. It distinguishes from siblings like 'resolve_sparks' by stating it returns a stored flag, not a computation.
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 for retrieving a stored tier but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'resolve_sparks' or 'check_eligibility'. No when-not or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_signal_chainBInspect
Return the full ACM-68000 signal chain for a GTIN (zero-pads to 14).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gtin | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions zero-padding behavior but does not disclose validity checks, side effects, or error cases.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and action, no wasted words.
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 output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, given no annotations, more context on prerequisites or error handling would improve completeness.
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?
Adds meaning beyond schema: explains that GTIN will be zero-padded to 14 characters. Schema has 0% description coverage, so this detail is valuable.
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?
Clearly states it returns the full ACM-68000 signal chain for a GTIN, with a specific behavior of zero-padding to 14. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like resolve_gtin or get_kernel.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include resolve_gtin which might also take a GTIN, but no comparison provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_brands_by_nodeInspect
SPARKS depth surface: the distinct brands SPARKS covers in a sovereign market. Answers 'what brands do you know in [node]'. Coverage only — no pack/size values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
list_nodesInspect
The 49 sovereign nodes (the spine) — each with its GS1 GTIN and CLEAN per-node maker (supply) and retailer (demand) counts (separate subqueries, never summed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
list_sku_typesAInspect
SPARKS taxonomy: the 84 standing BPC product-type codes the graph is structured on. Validate a type against this before a typed query. (BRAND is a tier, not a type.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool lists taxonomy codes but does not disclose if it is read-only, costly, or has side effects. However, the presence of an output schema covers return value details, mitigating the lack of behavioral info.
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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and every word adds value. No filler or redundant information.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It could mention that the list is read-only or static, but the core functionality and a usage hint are provided.
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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining that the tool lists a specific set of codes and includes a caveat about BRAND not being a type.
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 specifies that the tool lists the 84 standing BPC product-type codes from the SPARKS taxonomy, providing a concrete number and context. It also distinguishes that BRAND is a tier, not a type, adding precise definition.
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 for validating a product type before a typed query, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
node_marketInspect
Supply↔demand bridge for ONE jurisdiction: makers (supply) and retailers (demand) as two separate counts (never summed), plus the same-node potential bridge pairs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
resolve_gtinInspect
Resolve a GTIN to its procurement readiness signal. Zero-pads input to 14 digits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gtin | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
resolve_nodeInspect
Resolve one node: its GS1 license + its makers (supply) + its retailers (demand).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
resolve_scopeInspect
GSC Scoped Agents Registry — 1,000,000 scoped identities under SM-ECO-10060.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope_id | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
resolve_sparksInspect
Two-branch SPARKS resolver (zero-pads GTIN to 14). Branch A GSC Territory/License GTIN (990832300xxx) -> FULL license record (public). Branch B any third-party BPC GTIN -> GATED proof {recognized, region_node, kernel_available}; the pack/size VALUE is NEVER returned. Route to Navigator. Brand match is fail-closed (normalized exact match); uncertainty -> recognized:false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gtin | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
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!