Search 160k+ Russian B2B products from 8,900+ verified manufacturers (EN/RU).
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.
Average 3.7/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: getting a product, getting a supplier, listing categories, listing products in a category, and searching. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names use a consistent verb_noun pattern in camelCase (getProduct, getSupplier, listCategories, listProducts, searchProducts).
Five tools is well-scoped for a read-only B2B catalog, covering browsing, searching, and detailed views without excess.
The tool set covers the full user journey: browse categories, list products, search, get product details, and get supplier details. No obvious gaps for the intended read-only use.
getProductAInspectGet full details of a specific product by ID, including description, specifications, pricing, manufacturer info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productId | Yes | Tonzar product ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function. It fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior on missing products, which is a significant gap for a read operation without annotation support.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence adds value.
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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns (description, specifications, pricing, manufacturer info). Error handling and permissions are not mentioned but are less critical for a straightforward getter.
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 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter 'productId' is described in the schema as 'Tonzar product ID', and the description does not elaborate on format or constraints.
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 (Get), the resource (product), and the scope (by ID, full details including description, specifications, pricing, manufacturer info). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listProducts and searchProducts by specifying a single product lookup.
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 when you need full details of a specific product by ID, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. No exclusions or when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
getSupplierAInspectGet details about a Russian manufacturer/supplier including product count, categories, and company info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| supplierId | Yes | Tonzar supplier ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool retrieves details, but it does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling behaviors. The mention of included fields adds some transparency.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs with no redundant or unnecessary 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 is simple (single required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers the inputs and outputs. However, it lacks details on error conditions or response structure, which would be useful for complete context.
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 100%, and the description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. The parameter 'supplierId' is already described as 'Tonzar supplier ID' in the schema, so the description provides no extra semantic value.
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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'details about a Russian manufacturer/supplier', and it lists specific outputs (product count, categories, company info). It is distinct from sibling tools like getProduct and listCategories.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The required parameter implies usage for a specific supplier, but no explicit context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
listCategoriesAInspectList all product categories in the Tonzar catalog with product counts. 15 root categories covering industrial equipment, medical devices, agricultural machinery, transport, electronics, and more.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parentId | No | Optional parent category ID to list subcategories. Omit for root categories. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returning product counts but does not disclose read-only nature, auth requirements, or any side effects. Adequate for a simple list tool but lacks depth.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and context. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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?
No output schema; description would benefit from detailing the return format (e.g., list of objects with id, name, count). Basic understanding is possible but leaves some ambiguity.
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 100% with one optional parameter (parentId) described in the schema. The description adds no extra detail about parameters or their semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 lists all product categories with product counts and specifies the scope (Tonzar catalog, 15 root categories covering various domains). It distinguishes from sibling tools like listProducts and getProduct.
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 like searchProducts or listProducts. The parameter hint to omit parentId for root categories is in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
listProductsAInspectBrowse products in a specific category by ID. Returns paginated list with images, prices, and suppliers. Use after listCategories to explore a category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based, default 1) | |
| limit | No | Products per page (1-50, default 20) | |
| categoryId | Yes | Category ID (get from listCategories) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses paginated behavior and response fields (images, prices, suppliers). However, it does not detail pagination limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements, so transparency is adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and return content; the second provides usage guidance. Efficient and front-loaded.
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 no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return contents (pagination, images, prices, suppliers). It covers usage sequence and parameter details via the schema. Missing error handling or performance notes, but sufficient for a straightforward listing tool.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description only reinforces the categoryId hint but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 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 specifies the action (browse/list), resource (products), and context (by category ID). It also mentions the response content (images, prices, suppliers), and the phrase 'Use after listCategories' distinguishes it from sibling tools like searchProducts and getProduct.
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 explicitly states 'Use after listCategories to explore a category,' providing clear sequential guidance. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context makes it appropriate for category browsing after category selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchProductsAInspectSearch the Tonzar B2B catalog of 160,000+ Russian industrial, medical, and agricultural products. Returns matching products with prices, suppliers, and specs. Use for finding Russian equipment for export.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (product name, type, or keyword). English or Russian. | |
| exclude | No | Exclude products containing these terms in name, description or specs. Comma-separated for multiple (e.g. "chipboard,ЛДСП"). Also supports minus syntax in query itself (e.g. query "desk MDF -chipboard"). | |
| category | No | Optional category filter (e.g. "Medical", "Industrial", "Transport") | |
| maxResults | No | Max results to return (1-50, default 10) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description lacks behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication needs, read-only nature, pagination, or sorting behavior. Only states what is returned, not side effects or constraints.
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?
Three concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Adequately describes tool purpose and output (prices, suppliers, specs). Missing output schema and annotations, but description compensates well. Could mention search behavior (e.g., fuzzy vs exact) or multilingual handling.
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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. Description adds minimal extra value beyond schema (e.g., catalog scale, result content). Baseline 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?
Clearly states verb (search), resource (Tonzar B2B catalog of Russian products), and expected returns (prices, suppliers, specs). Differentiates from siblings like getProduct (single product) and listCategories.
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?
Explicitly states use case: finding Russian equipment for export. Implicitly distinguishes from siblings (getProduct for specific item, listCategories for browsing). Could be more explicit about when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
