LocationLists

Sell a list on LocationLists

sell_list

Put the user's list of business locations up for sale on LocationLists. They keep 80% of each sale; we host, check out, deliver and pay out. No account. THE STEPS, each one call: (1) call with the user's email alone: a six-digit code is emailed to them (ask the user for their email first; never invent one). (2) Ask the user for the code from that email (never guess it) and call again with email, code, and the list: rows inline, an array of objects, one per location, with a name and an address or latitude/longitude (up to 5,000 rows), or for a bigger file filename + bytes and no rows, which returns an upload_url (HTTP PUT the raw file to it) and a token. (3) After the PUT, call with token, upload_id and filename. Add what (one sentence), rows_claimed and target_usd from price_my_list when you have them. Then everything is by email to the seller: the written listing with its checks and price in a few minutes, Confirm / Change links, and 'It's live' after LocationLists reviews it. Accepted: CSV, TSV, JSON, GeoJSON. Nothing goes live without the seller's confirmation and a human review. The same thing in a browser: https://locationlists.com/sell.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sell_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	The six-digit code from the email we sent, as the user read it to you
`rows`	No	The list itself, one object per location, up to 5,000. Keep the user's own column names.
`what`	No	What the list is, one sentence, in the user's words
`bytes`	No	The file's size in bytes, with filename, for an upload URL
`email`	No	The seller's email, exactly as the user gave it. Every message about the list goes there.
`token`	No	The token a previous sell_list call returned with an upload_url
`filename`	No	The file's name with its extension (.csv, .tsv, .json, .geojson); with bytes and no rows, asks for an upload URL
`upload_id`	No	The upload_id from the upload_url call, after the PUT finished
`target_usd`	No	The price the user wants for the whole file, US dollars (ends in 9 after rounding)
`rows_claimed`	No	About how many rows, as the user said

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the email-code verification, optional upload URL flow, seller confirmation, human review, accepted formats, and that nothing goes live without confirmation. These are substantial behavioral details that an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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?

The description is long but appropriately structured for a three-call workflow, with the key action front-loaded and steps clearly numbered. Some clauses are dense, but the length is largely justified by the multi-step process.

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 the complex three-step process, rich schema, and lack of an output schema, the description is complete: it covers inputs, upload mechanics, follow-up emails, confirmation, review, formats, and payout terms. An agent has enough information to drive the workflow correctly.

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?

The schema already documents all 10 parameters at full coverage, but the description adds important cross-parameter sequencing: email alone triggers a code, rows inline vs. filename+bytes selects an upload path, and token/upload_id/filename are used after the PUT. That conditional flow is meaningful beyond the individual schema descriptions, though it does not need to restate every parameter.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: putting the user's business-location list up for sale on LocationLists. It is distinguishable from pricing, buying, or searching siblings, and the title reinforces the same scope.

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 gives a clear multi-step when-to-use flow, including asking for the user's email first and never guessing the code. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full 5-level guidance.

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

All LocationLists 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.