Search the plati.market (Digiseller) catalogue and fetch product details with seller info.
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.
Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one fetches a single product by ID, the other searches for multiple products. There is no overlap.
Both tool names follow a consistent pattern of 'get_<resource>_from_plati_market', with singular and plural forms properly used.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal. For a market server, one might expect additional functionality like seller details or purchases, but the scope is focused on product retrieval.
The tools cover basic product lookup (by ID and search), but lack any operations beyond retrieval, such as seller information or categories. For a read-only product query server, it is modestly complete.
get_product_from_plati_marketGet a product and its seller from plati.marketAInspectFetch the full description of a single plati.market product plus the seller (id and name) that offers it, by product id. JSON output is requested via response_format=json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Response language (default en-US). | |
| currency | No | Currency for the price. | |
| product_id | Yes | Numeric product id, e.g. 3099674. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states what is fetched (description and seller) and that JSON output is requested, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or potential effects (likely read-only, but not explicit).
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 the action, no redundant information. Concisely communicates the tool's purpose.
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?
The description explains the output structure (description + seller with id and name), but does not specify exact fields, error handling, or pagination. Given no output schema, more detail could be helpful.
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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond mentioning the product_id, but does not elaborate on lang or currency or provide usage examples.
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 specifies the verb 'Fetch' and the resource: a single product's full description plus seller info. The sibling tool name 'get_products_from_plati_market' implies multiple products, helping to distinguish.
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 implies use for a single product, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over the sibling or provide any when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_products_from_plati_marketSearch products on plati.marketAInspectSearch the plati.market (Digiseller) catalogue and return matching products with their description, prices and the seller offering them. Wraps the 'Items search' API (show=xml&f=7).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Response language (default en-US). | |
| query | Yes | Search phrase, at least 3 characters. | |
| pagenum | No | Page number (default 1). | |
| pagesize | No | Results per page (default 10, max 100). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explains the tool performs a search and returns product data. However, it does not disclose whether it is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the schema.
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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It avoids unnecessary words but could be more structured with explicit details. Still efficient and clear.
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?
The description outlines the return content but lacks details on result structure or ordering. Given there is no output schema and 4 parameters, it is moderately complete but could be more specific about pagination and search behavior.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics for the parameters, only mentioning the API endpoint. It does not enhance understanding of how parameters affect the search.
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 it searches the plati.market catalogue and returns matching products with details. The verb 'search' and resource 'plati.market catalogue' are specific. The plural name distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_product_from_plati_market' which implies individual retrieval.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tool. The distinction is implied by the plural name ('products' vs 'product'), but no explicit guidance on context or alternatives is provided.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
