Ecommerce Mcp
Server Details
MCP server for E-Commerce
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search discovers products, get_product retrieves full details, get_nutrition provides nutritional data, and health_check checks server status. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (get_nutrition, get_product, health_check, search_products).
Four tools is well-scoped for a read-only product information server, covering search, details, nutrition, and health check without being too few or excessive.
The set covers the core read operations for an ecommerce product database (search, get details, get nutrition). Missing write or filter operations, but that's reasonable for a public API.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_nutritionBInspect
Get nutrition facts per 100g for a product by barcode. Returns {energy, fat, sugars, salt, proteins, ...}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| barcode | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states read-only behavior (get nutrition facts) but does not discuss idempotency, side effects, error conditions (e.g., invalid barcode), or data freshness.
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?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose and input, second enumerates output fields. No unnecessary words, front-loaded effectively.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers purpose and return shape. Missing details about error handling or expected barcode format, but overall adequate for an agent to understand core functionality.
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?
Only one parameter, barcode, described as 'by barcode' in the description. Schema coverage is 0% (no description in schema). No format, example, or constraints provided for barcode, which is insufficient for an agent to know valid input.
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?
Description clearly states it retrieves nutrition facts per 100g for a product using a barcode. The return fields are listed. Sibling tools indicate differentiation: get_product for full info, health_check and search_products for other tasks.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it does not mention that get_product might provide more comprehensive data or that health_check is for system health. Only the tool's own purpose is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_productAInspect
Get full product details by barcode (EAN/UPC). Returns ingredients, labels, stores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| barcode | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what is returned (ingredients, labels, stores) but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, error handling, or authentication requirements.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence. No extraneous words; every part earns its place.
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?
Given simple tool with one parameter and no return schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. Slightly incomplete regarding behavioral context, but reasonable for a straightforward lookup.
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?
Only one parameter exists with 0% schema coverage; the description adds meaning by specifying 'by barcode (EAN/UPC)' indicating expected format. However, it does not mention that barcode is required (schema indicates required) or provide additional constraints.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'full product details', and the method 'by barcode (EAN/UPC)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_products' (search) and 'get_nutrition' (nutrition-specific).
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?
Implies usage when a barcode is available and full product details are needed. No explicit when-not or alternative tools mentioned, but the context of sibling tools and the specific method 'by barcode' provides implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
health_checkCInspect
Health check. FREE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'FREE' but does not clarify if the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires authentication. The behavioral implications are unclear.
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 extremely concise with only three words. It is front-loaded and has no wasted text, though it may sacrifice completeness for brevity.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters or output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the health check entails, what response to expect, or how to interpret results. More context would be beneficial.
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?
The tool has no parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
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 says 'Health check. FREE.' It clearly indicates a health check action but lacks specifics on what is being checked (e.g., system availability, API status). The name already implies the purpose, so the description adds minimal new information.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (get_nutrition, get_product, search_products). The description does not provide any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_productsAInspect
Search 3M+ products by name/brand (Open Food Facts). FREE discovery. Returns {products: [{barcode, name, brands, nutriscore}]}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description notes it's free and returns a specific structure, but lacks details on auth, rate limits, or possible side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key info, efficient. Could be slightly more structured but overall good.
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?
Includes return format, but missing details on pagination, error handling, or ordering. Without output schema, more context would be beneficial for a search tool over a large dataset.
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 has 0% description coverage; description does not explain the 'limit' parameter or add meaning beyond the schema's field names. Minimal added value.
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?
Clearly states it searches by name/brand across 3M+ products from Open Food Facts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_product (single product) and get_nutrition (nutrition details).
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?
Implied usage for discovery/search, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!