Plati.Market
Server Details
Search the plati.market (Digiseller) catalogue and fetch product details with seller info.
- Status
- Healthy
- 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 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: one fetches a single product by ID, the other searches for products. No overlap.
Both tools follow the identical pattern 'get_product[s]_from_plati_market', perfectly consistent.
Only two tools for a marketplace API is thin but not unreasonable if the server is limited to read operations only.
The tool set covers only two read operations (get by ID and search), missing expected CRUD operations, categories, cart, or user actions, resulting in significant gaps.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_product_from_plati_marketGet a product and its seller from plati.marketAInspect
Fetch 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. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure (full description plus seller id/name) and notes JSON output format, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.
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 a single concise sentence with an additional note about JSON output. No redundant information, front-loaded with key action and resource.
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 fetch tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. It is adequate but could be more comprehensive.
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% and all parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'by product id', adding minimal additional context beyond the schema. 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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'a single plati.market product plus the seller', and the scope 'by product id'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_products_from_plati_market' by specifying singular vs plural.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The sibling tool is implied but not compared. The description implies usage for single product fetch, but lacks direct alternatives or exclusions.
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.marketAInspect
Search 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). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool searches and returns data, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly mention that it is non-destructive, rate limits, or any other behavioral aspects. It is adequate but could be more transparent.
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 very concise: two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and the underlying API. No extraneous information, every word 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 the tool's simplicity and 100% schema coverage, the description provides enough context for basic use. It mentions pagination implicitly via parameters but does not detail the output structure beyond mentioning description, prices, and seller. Could be slightly more complete, but adequate.
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 each parameter has a description. The tool description adds value by specifying the return content (description, prices, seller), which is not in the parameter schema. This goes beyond the schema, earning a score above the baseline of 3.
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's function: searching the plati.market catalogue and returning matching products with description, prices, and seller. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool (get_product_from_plati_market) by using plural 'products' and mentions the specific API wrap, making purpose unambiguous.
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 usage for searching multiple products, contrasting with the singular sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.
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!