Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ozon Consumer MCP

Ozon Consumer MCP

by errogaht
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

ozon_collections

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads favorites, wishlists, and collections with their descriptions, covers, visibility, and item counts so you can inspect saved shopping lists on Ozon.

Instructions

Прочитать списки избранного, вишлисты и подборки, их описания/обложки/видимость/число товаров.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ozon_collections"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoall
nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing what data comes back (descriptions, covers, visibility, item counts), but says nothing about pagination, auth requirements, or result ordering.

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 compact sentence with the resource list front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though it packs the returned-field list densely rather than separating scope from output.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields is helpful, but with 0% parameter coverage and no usage guidance the definition leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never explains the two parameters. The three list types loosely map to the 'kind' enum, but the 'name' filter (1-100 chars) is entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("Прочитать" / read) and enumerates the resources: favorites, wishlists, collections, plus the fields returned (descriptions, covers, visibility, product count). This distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like ozon_collection_create, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of how it relates to ozon_favorite or ozon_collection_create. The read intent is only implied by the verb; an agent gets no routing help.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools