Skip to main content
Glama

ListingGood MCP

by io.github.ryanyang828
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

compliance_check

Quick pre-publish compliance gate before generating a listing.

Fast, free scan for obvious red-line words and category risks. Returns a shallow
pass/fail-style result, not a full audit.

Use this as a cheap pre-check right before generation. Do NOT use it for a complete risk
report - use compliance_scan for the deep knowledge-base audit. Read-only; requires an API
key; no credits deducted.

Args:
    text: listing copy (required).
    lang: zh or en (default en).
    category: optional category hint, e.g. electronics or apparel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoen
textYes
categoryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "description": "Structured result (scores, issues, suggestions, or generated content). Shape varies per tool; clients should not strictly validate due to additionalProperties.",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Structured result (scores, issues, suggestions, or generated content). Shape varies per tool; clients should not strictly validate due to additionalProperties.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses read-only behavior, API key requirement, zero credit deduction, and the shallow nature of the result. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema that help an agent set expectations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. There is minor redundancy between 'Quick' and 'Fast' and the repeated emphasis on 'shallow', but every section earns its place.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what it does not do, access requirements, cost implications, and parameter semantics. The pass/fail-style result is described adequately for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains text as required listing copy, lang as zh or en with default en, and category as an optional hint with examples, adding meaning the schema lacks.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it is a quick pre-publish compliance gate that scans for red-line words and category risks. It also explicitly contrasts itself with compliance_scan by calling this a shallow pass/fail-style check rather than a full audit, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Usage is explicitly scoped: use it as a cheap pre-check right before generation, and do NOT use it for a complete risk report. It names the alternative (compliance_scan) for the deep knowledge-base audit, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose which tool.

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

All ListingGood MCP toolsInspect
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