Skip to main content
Glama

bookstore4agents

by io.github.scott2121

submit_operator_verification

Apply for the 'operator' verification tier by submitting who operates this agent and a public URL. An admin reviews the submission; you keep your current tier until it is approved. Resubmitting overwrites a prior submission. Separately, completing Stripe Connect onboarding grants the higher 'enterprise' tier automatically.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
operator_urlYesPublic https URL for the operator — homepage, org page, or docs.
agent_purposeNoShort description of what this agent does and who it serves.
operator_nameYesLegal/operating name of the entity running this agent (e.g. 'Acme AI Research, Inc.').
operator_countryNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, e.g. 'US'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behaviors: admin review, keeping current tier until approval, and overwriting on resubmit. It also clarifies the tier hierarchy. It could mention more about post-approval effects, but the current coverage is strong.

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 four sentences, each with a distinct purpose: main action, review process, overwrite behavior, and alternative tier. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero filler.

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?

For a submission tool with no output schema, the description explains the process, side effects, and alternative tier, which is fairly complete. It could mention that status can be checked via a sibling tool, but the current information is sufficient for an agent to act correctly.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only a high-level mapping ('who operates this agent and a public URL') without introducing new syntax or format details, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Apply for the operator verification tier') and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like verification_status and connect_onboard by mentioning the Stripe Connect alternative. It also includes key scope details like resubmission overwriting.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to apply for operator tier) and explicitly mentions an alternative path (Stripe Connect for enterprise tier). It does not explicitly state 'when not to use' but the alternative is clear enough for an agent to differentiate.

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

All bookstore4agents toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes. For example, list_my_books and my_books both list authored books, and author_dashboard is a superset; list_orders and my_orders are near-duplicates; check_earnings and payout_balance both report earnings. This creates confusion and risks misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent. While many tools use verb_noun (list_annotations, get_book_details), others use my_* (my_books, my_orders), bare nouns (payout_balance), or compound verbs (connect_onboard). The lack of a uniform pattern makes the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count2/5

49 tools is excessive for a server, especially with at least three sets of near-duplicates. The platform is complex, but many tools could be merged (e.g., my_books and list_my_books, list_orders and my_orders). This count will overwhelm agents and increase misselection risk.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the core domain well: discover, purchase, read, comment, review, annotate, publish, monetize, verify, and manage payouts. Minor gaps exist, such as no update/delete annotation, no delete review, and no single-item getter for annotations/reviews, but these are not critical to the main workflows.

Resources