Skip to main content
Glama

MetaSearch MCP

by tr.com.metasearch
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Validate Criteo catalog readiness

validate_criteo_catalog
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a product or travel catalog for Criteo import readiness, content coverage, IDs, URLs and images.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoOptional input-format override. Omit or use auto to detect JSON, NDJSON, XML, CSV or TSV automatically.
contentYesFeed content. Paste the JSON, XML, CSV, TSV or NDJSON payload directly. Maximum size is 2 MB.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreYes
formatYes
issuesYes
targetYesValidation target. Choose a published-contract validator, readiness checker or the generic hotel master data audit.
recordsYes
coverageYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / content / description
      Previous value: -"Feed content. Paste the JSON, XML, CSV, TSV or NDJSON payload directly."New value: +"Feed content. Paste the JSON, XML, CSV, TSV or NDJSON payload directly. Maximum size is 2 MB."
    • addedInput schema / properties / format / description
      Added value: +"Optional input-format override. Omit or use auto to detect JSON, NDJSON, XML, CSV or TSV automatically."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "coverage": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "missing": {
+            "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+            "minimum": 0,
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "present": {
+            "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+            "minimum": 0,
+            "type": "integer"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "present",
+          "missing"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "propertyNames": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "format": {
+      "enum": [
+        "JSON",
+        "XML",
+        "CSV",
+        "TSV",
+        "NDJSON"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "issues": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "code": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "level": {
+            "enum": [
+              "error",
+              "warning",
+              "info"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "message": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "rows": {
+            "items": {
+              "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+              "minimum": 0,
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "level",
+          "code",
+          "message"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "records": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "maximum": 100,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "target": {
+      "description": "Validation target. Choose a published-contract validator, readiness checker or the generic hotel master data audit.",
+      "enum": [
+        "wego",
+        "google_hotel_center",
+        "trivago",
+        "meta_catalog",
+        "criteo",
+        "hotel_master_data"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "target",
+    "format",
+    "records",
+    "score",
+    "issues",
+    "coverage"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the validation surface (coverage, IDs, URLs, images) but says nothing about how failures are reported or whether it only diagnoses without fixing — relevant since suggest_feed_fixes exists as a sibling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the verb and the Criteo scope. It is efficient, though the terse list-style tail leaves room without being wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a validation tool competing with several platform-specific validators and fix-suggestion siblings, the description omits what a failing result means and when this one is the right choice.

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% and both parameters (content, format enum) are documented in the schema itself, including the 2 MB limit and auto-detection behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a product or travel catalog') scoped to Criteo import readiness, and enumerates what is inspected (content coverage, IDs, URLs, images). It is clearly distinct from the Google/Meta/Trivago/Wego siblings by naming Criteo, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling validate_feed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to run this versus validate_feed, validate_meta_catalog, or compare_platform_requirements, nor any prerequisite (e.g. run before import, after normalize). Usage can only be inferred from the Criteo-specific name.

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

All MetaSearch MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources