Partle Marketplac

mark_for_sale

Idempotent

Move an inventory item to status=for_sale and set listing fields.

Convenience wrapper over `update_inventory_item` that matches a
natural user request ("list my drill for sale at 30€"). Sets all
three columns (`status`, `asking_price`, `asking_currency`, and
optionally `condition`) atomically.

Authenticated. Required OAuth scope: `inventory:write`. Caller must
own the item.

Args:
    item_id: ID of the inventory row.
    asking_price: How much you're asking for it. Whole units, not
        cents. Required.
    asking_currency: Currency. Default `€`.
    condition: Free string describing the item's condition (e.g.
        ``like_new``, ``good``). Optional.
    api_key: Optional API key (`pk_*`, generate at /account).
        Used when there is no OAuth token, and also when the OAuth
        token lacks the required scope — an explicitly passed key
        overrides an ambient token that is scoped too narrowly.
        An invalid or revoked token still fails regardless.

Returns:
    The updated inventory row, or ``{"error": ...}``.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`api_key`	No
`item_id`	Yes
`condition`	No
`asking_price`	Yes
`asking_currency`	No	€

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedMay 3, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals atomicity of updates, OAuth requirements, ownership prerequisite, and the api_key override semantics. It also explains that an invalid token fails regardless, adding important behavioral nuance that annotations do not cover.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Though detailed, the description is well-organized into purpose, authentication, args, and returns. Every sentence contributes necessary information—no fluff. The length is appropriate for a tool with five parameters and multiple auth scenarios.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers all key aspects: what the tool does, its relationship to siblings, authentication, ownership, parameter semantics, and return value. It is complete enough to invoke without external docs, especially given no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter in detail, including examples, units, and defaults. For instance, it notes asking_price is in whole units not cents, and asking_currency defaults to €. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Move an inventory item to status=for_sale and set listing fields.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and further distinguishes itself by noting it's a 'Convenience wrapper over update_inventory_item' that matches a natural user request, setting it apart from sibling tools like mark_sold.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly frames this tool as a convenience wrapper for update_inventory_item, telling the user when to prefer it (for natural listing requests). It also provides critical usage context: required OAuth scope, caller must own the item, and behavior of api_key when OAuth is insufficient. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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

All Partle Marketplac tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?