Skip to main content
Glama
ilyautov

marketplaces-mcp-ru

by ilyautov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

avito_call_method

Read-only

Execute any read-only Avito API endpoint by operation ID to fetch data without confirmation. Returns JSON with status and data.

Instructions

Execute one READ endpoint from the catalog by operation_id.

Target API: https://developers.avito.ru/api-catalog.

Reads only: nothing here changes data, so it runs without confirmation. To change data use avito_write_method, to delete use avito_delete_method.

Args: operation_id: id from the catalog (see avito_search_methods). path_values: values for {placeholders} in the path. query: query-string parameters. body: JSON request body (a few read endpoints take one). Returns JSON: {"ok": true, "status", "data"} or the error envelope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo
queryNo
path_valuesNo
operation_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm_write
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": false,
-  "title": "Confirm Write",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / i_understand_this_modifies_data
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": false,
-  "title": "I Understand This Modifies Data",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
  2. Addedv0.5.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds that the tool 'runs without confirmation' and notes that only a few read endpoints require a body. It also discloses the response envelope and error envelope, providing useful behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, target API, read-only behavior, sibling routing, then a compact args list and return format. Every sentence earns its place, and the line breaks make the parameter documentation easy to scan.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a generic read executor with four parameters and an output schema, the description provides the target API, read-only guarantee, sibling alternatives, parameter roles, and return shape. It could be more detailed about authentication or error envelope specifics, but it gives an agent enough orientation to invoke the tool correctly with the help of avito_search_methods.

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 0%, so the description carries the explanatory burden. It gives meaningful semantics for each parameter: operation_id is sourced from the catalog, path_values fill {placeholders}, query is query-string parameters, and body is a JSON request body for certain read endpoints. While not deeply detailed, it maps each parameter to its role.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute one READ endpoint from the catalog by operation_id.' It clearly differentiates itself from sibling write and delete tools by explicitly naming avito_write_method and avito_delete_method as the alternatives for changing or removing data.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: it states this tool is for read-only operations, names the write and delete sibling tools for data changes, and points to avito_search_methods for discovering valid operation_id values. This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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