Skip to main content
Glama

ListingGood MCP

by io.github.ryanyang828
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

generate_poa

Draft a submission-ready Plan of Action (POA) from an Amazon violation notice (async; 4 credits).

Converts a suspension or removal email into a structured POA appeal. Use this when a listing
or account is suppressed. Not free - deducts 4 credits and runs asynchronously, poll for the
result. Read-only: it drafts text and does not submit anything to Amazon.

Args:
    text: violation notice or removal email text (required).
    marketplace: marketplace code (default US).
    lang: zh or en (default en).
    violation_type: optional, e.g. ip_complaint / authenticity / policy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoen
textYes
marketplaceNoUS
violation_typeNo

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is async, costs 4 credits, is read-only, and does not submit anything to Amazon. This is strong transparency, though it omits details about what the returned result looks like or what 'poll for the result' entails.

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, then usage context, then args. It is mostly efficient, though 'Converts a suspension or removal email into a structured POA appeal' partially restates the first sentence. Still, every important detail found a place without bloat.

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 no output schema, the description usefully covers async behavior, cost, read-only nature, and all parameters. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, but the missing description of the polling mechanism/result shape leaves a small ambiguity about what to expect after submission.

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 fully compensates by listing all four parameters with meanings, defaults, and examples. It clarifies the required text input, default marketplace, language options (zh/en), and optional violation_type examples. This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 and resource: 'Draft a submission-ready Plan of Action (POA) from an Amazon violation notice.' It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like compliance_check or analyze_review by focusing on converting a violation notice into an appeal, and even clarifies it does not submit anything.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when a listing or account is suppressed.' It also notes operational constraints such as the 4-credit cost, asynchronous execution, and the need to poll for the result. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the condition is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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