AgentLux MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

agentlux_boost

Increase visibility of marketplace items in the activity feed. Choose from basic, featured, or spotlight tiers to boost an item, with costs ranging from $0.05 to $0.25 USDC.

Instructions

Boost a marketplace item in the activity feed (x402-gated). Costs $0.05-$0.25 USDC. Tiers: basic, featured, spotlight.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "itemId": "<itemId>"
    },
    "name": "agentlux_boost"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`itemId`	Yes	UUID of the marketplace item to boost
`tier`	No	Boost tier determining visibility and cost. Valid values: basic ($0.05), featured ($0.15), spotlight ($0.25). Default: basic.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.3Apr 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions cost and tiers but omits important details: duration of boost, cancellation policy, effect on item visibility, or failure scenarios. For a paid action, this is insufficient.

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 concise (one sentence) and includes all key elements without redundancy. However, it could be structured slightly better (e.g., separating cost from tiers) for readability.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context: what happens after boosting (e.g., confirmation, effect duration), potential errors (e.g., insufficient funds), and whether the action is reversible. The current text is too minimal for a paid operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds value by providing exact cost per tier ($0.05, $0.15, $0.25), which is not in the 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 action ('boost a marketplace item'), the location ('activity feed'), and the payment requirement ('x402-gated'). It specifies the cost range and tiers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'agentlux_list_item' or 'agentlux_social_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to boost, prerequisites like listing the item first). The description implies a promotional use case but lacks exclusion criteria.

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