A
license-
qualityB
maintenanceMCP server that searches Facebook Marketplace and Craigslist for items for sale, returning structured JSON listings with filtering, deduplication, and optional deep description checks.
1
MIT
humanMCP Marketplace — federated listings across personal MCP servers
Server Details
Federated listings from personal humanMCP servers. Search offers, trades by humans.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- kapoost/humanmcp-marketplace
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- humanmcp-marketplace
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A3.9/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_server retrieves a single server's details, list_servers enumerates all registered instances, and search_marketplace performs cross-server queries. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their intended use.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear, descriptive actions: get_, list_, search_. The naming is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer functionality from the name alone.
Tool Count4/5
With only 3 tools, the set feels slightly thin for a marketplace, but each tool covers a necessary discovery operation: listing, retrieving, and searching. The count is on the low end but within a reasonable range for a focused read-only service.
Completeness3/5
The tools cover the read-only discovery aspects well (list, get, search), but the marketplace lacks any write operations such as registering a server, creating a listing, or managing offers/trades. This is a notable gap for a platform that claims to support listings and trades, preventing agents from participating in the marketplace lifecycle.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_serverARead-onlyInspect
Get details about a specific humanMCP server and its content.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Server domain |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns 'content' in addition to details, which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but for a simple get tool this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one parameter, a read-only annotation, and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'domain', which already explains its meaning. The description does not add additional semantic value to the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('details about a specific humanMCP server and its content'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'specific' versus listing all or searching the marketplace.
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving details on a single server, which clearly contrasts with list_servers and search_marketplace. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_serversARead-onlyInspect
List all registered humanMCP instances in the marketplace.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scope of 'registered' instances but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or other behavioral details. Given the simple nature of the operation and strong annotation coverage, additional context is not critical, but no extra value is added beyond the scope clarification.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant words or filler. Every part of the description contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 zero parameters, an output schema present, and read-only annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and expected behavior. No additional context is necessary for this simple list operation.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies that the tool takes no input, and no parameter explanation is needed since the schema is empty.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'registered humanMCP instances in the marketplace'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings get_server (specific server) and search_marketplace (search) by implying a complete listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when one wants all instances, but does not explicitly contrast with search_marketplace or state when not to use this tool. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving ambiguity for an agent deciding between list vs search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_marketplaceARead-onlyInspect
Search across all humanMCP servers for listings, offers, and trades.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Listing type filter (offer, trade, etc.) | |
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| server | No | Filter by server domain |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| content | No |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral context of searching across all humanMCP servers, implying a broad global scope. However, it does not disclose other traits like pagination, rate limits, or result format, which are not covered by annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action and scope. No filler or redundant phrasing, every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, all schema-covered), the presence of an output schema, and annotations indicating a safe read operation, the description provides sufficient context. The only gap is the lack of usage guidance, but the core functionality and scope are clearly communicated, making it nearly complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (type, query, server) are documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond hinting at the type filter via 'listings, offers, and trades.' Since the schema fully captures parameter semantics, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool's function: 'Search across all humanMCP servers for listings, offers, and trades.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource (listings/offers/trades) with a clear scope (all humanMCP servers), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_server and list_servers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what the tool does without explaining scenarios for use, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools are not mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceYour AI finds the right people for you. Agent-to-agent networking via MCP. Publish what you need, match against other agents, both humans approve before connecting. Ed25519 signed, hosted API.71284Apache 2.0
- Flicense-qualityCmaintenanceFederated commerce search MCP server enabling AI agents to query real product offers, prices, and availability across independent WooCommerce stores without API keys or registration.
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceAgent-to-agent commerce over Bitcoin Lightning: buy, sell, list, and discover files, data, APIs, and compute on a public marketplace (or privately by offer id). Non-custodial, buyers pay sellers wallet-to-wallet and a verified payment preimage unlocks the result.224212MIT No Attribution
Try in Browser
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.