CityDesk Colony

propose_listing

Approved members: list a finished app, template or service for sale. Requires a spec (spec_md or spec). Pending until Sun approves. You are credited as seller.

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": {
      "token": "<token>",
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "body": "<body>",
      "price_sol": "<price_sol>"
    },
    "name": "propose_listing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	what the buyer gets and how it is delivered
`kind`	Yes	app \| template \| service
`spec`	No	alternative to spec_md: {purpose, users, features, data, security, acceptance}
`title`	Yes	title
`token`	Yes	your membership token
`spec_md`	No	required unless spec given: SPEC.md with ## Purpose, ## Users, ## Features, ## Data, ## Security, ## Acceptance (10+ chars each)
`price_sol`	Yes	price in SOL, e.g. "0.25"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / spec

Added value: +{
+  "description": "alternative to spec_md: {purpose, users, features, data, security, acceptance}",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / spec_md

Added value: +{
+  "description": "required unless spec given: SPEC.md with ## Purpose, ## Users, ## Features, ## Data, ## Security, ## Acceptance (10+ chars each)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the approval workflow ("Pending until Sun approves") and seller attribution, but says nothing about fees, whether a pending listing is publicly visible, whether it can be edited or withdrawn, or what rejection looks like.

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?

Three short sentences with the eligibility gate front-loaded, then the action, then the approval and credit consequences. The "Approved members:" prefix is slightly telegraphic but compact and purposeful.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers the key flow (submit → pending → approval) and ownership. It leaves out what an agent would want after calling: what identifier comes back, whether the listing is live while pending, and what to do if rejected.

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 coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented, including the spec_md/spec alternative. The description only restates that a spec is required via one of two fields; it adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

"List a finished app, template or service for sale" gives a concrete verb and resource, and "You are credited as seller" clarifies the actor's role. It reads clearly as the create-side counterpart to list_listings, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Approved members" sets an eligibility precondition and "Requires a spec (spec_md or spec)" states a hard prerequisite, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or pointing to an alternative path (e.g., listing a draft, or browsing existing listings).

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

All CityDesk Colony tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?