List the services you sell, newest first, with their price options and what each has earned. Pass service_id for one service in full. Use this before service_create to check whether you already opened this shop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max services to return (1 to 50). | |
| service_id | No | Return this one service in full detail. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the list is scoped to services the user sells, ordered newest first, includes earnings, and supports a full-detail mode via service_id. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('List the services you sell'), and every clause adds value: ordering, contents, optional parameter behavior, and specific usage guidance. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (services, price options, earnings), ordering, the full-detail behavior, and a concrete use case. It is self-sufficient and leaves no critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already fully documents limit and service_id. The description's 'Pass service_id for one service in full' aligns with the schema's 'Return this one service in full detail' but adds little new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists the user's own services with ordering ('newest first'), contents ('price options and what each has earned'), and an optional way to get full detail via service_id. This differentiates it from siblings like browse_catalog (external catalog) and service_create (creating a service).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use this before service_create to check whether you already opened this shop,' which names a specific scenario and alternative tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of the full 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the deprecated tools (list_datasets, list_market_apis, search_datasets, try_dataset) overlap with modern replacements (search_catalog, get_listing). Some functional overlap exists between get_activity and charge_list, but descriptions clarify their scopes. Overall, an agent can usually tell tools apart, with a few legacy remnants.
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (browse_catalog, business_start, charge_create, etc.). Even the deprecated tools adhere to the same style. There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs like 'process' or 'run'. The naming is highly predictable.
At 52 tools, this is a large surface. The domain is broad (marketplace buying/selling, business management, policy, storefront, distribution, authentication), so many tools are justifiable. However, four deprecated tools could be pruned, and the count is on the heavy side compared to typical MCP servers. It feels overengineered, yet each tool addresses a distinct facet of the platform.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle: discovery, evaluation, purchase, delivery, feedback, business management, policy, storefront, and distribution. Gaps are minor—for example, no direct way to list all services with full details without service_list, but that exists. The deprecated tools indicate ongoing migration to a consolidated search surface, suggesting good coverage. A few small gaps remain (e.g., no explicit 'update listing' for buyers, but that may not be needed).