Skip to main content
Glama
Automate-with-Sanjay

olx-india-mcp

by Automate-with-Sanjay
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools serve clearly distinct purposes: one searches for listings with filters, the other retrieves detailed information about a specific listing. There is no ambiguity about which tool handles which task.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools follow a consistent noun-phrase pattern with descriptive names (search_listings, get_listing_details). The pattern is logical and predictable, though a more uniform verb_noun structure could make it even more consistent.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels extremely thin for a classifieds platform. A typical OLX workflow would require at least a handful more tools (e.g., filtering by category, browsing subcategories, location listing). Two tools is borderline under-minimal for the apparent scope.

    Completeness2/5

    The server covers search and detail retrieval, but lacks common operations expected from a classifieds platform such as browsing by category, managing saved/favorite listings, or posting listings. While search+detail is the read path, there are notable gaps in category discovery and navigation.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The description doesn't disclose pagination limits, result counts returned, rate limits, whether location matching is fuzzy, or how sorting interacts with relevance. For a search tool, behavior around defaults and result set breadth would be valuable context.

    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?

    The description is a single focused sentence that lists the key optional dimensions (location, pricing, sorting, page). It's concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Could mention a typical example but isn't padded with filler.

    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?

    For a search tool with one required param and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete. There's no mention of result count limits, whether the location parameter supports abbreviations, or guidance on combining filters. The tool is moderately complex (6 optional params) but the schema covers their individual semantics well enough.

    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%, so the schema documents all 6 parameters well. The description adds the default sorting behavior (relevance/default) which is a marginal bonus, but otherwise the parameters are fully self-documenting in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

    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?

    The description clearly states the verb (search), resource (classified product listings on OLX India), and scope (with location, pricing, sorting, and page parameters). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_listing_details' by the search-action vs. detail-retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    Usage is implied by the purpose - searching for listings - and the optional parameters describe typical use cases. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. get_listing_details (e.g., 'use this to discover listings, then get_listing_details for a specific one'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation ('Retrieve'). However, it does not disclose whether the tool requires any specific access, what happens with invalid or non-existent URLs/IDs, rate limits, or the exact shape of the returned data. The read-only nature is implied but return format is undocumented.

    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?

    The description is a single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Retrieve' and the object. There is minor redundancy ('full attributes, images, and seller profile' alongside 'comprehensive details') but overall it is tight and organized.

    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?

    The description adequately conveys the tool's scope for a simple single-parameter retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from describing what the return data looks like and behavior around missing/invalid inputs to be fully complete. The multi-item list of returned content mitigates but does not fully close this gap.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    The schema already describes the single parameter ('full OLX listing URL or numeric Listing ID') with 100% coverage. The description adds clarity by emphasizing the two accepted input forms (URL or ID). This meaningfully supplements the schema by confirming either format works, which is helpful operational information.

    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?

    The description uses a clear verb-resource structure ('Retrieve comprehensive details... for a specific OLX listing') and specifies the two input forms (URL or Listing ID). It distinguishes from the sibling 'search_listings' tool, though it does not explicitly state the differentiation. Slightly verbose with redundant qualifiers like 'comprehensive details, description, full attributes...'.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies usage for fetching individual listing details rather than searching, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs search_listings, nor provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. Usage is inferable from the sibling context but not directly articulated.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

OLX_INDIA_MCP_SERVER MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

OLX_INDIA_MCP_SERVER MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Automate-with-Sanjay/OLX_INDIA_MCP_SERVER'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server