Skip to main content
Glama
juan-sibbo

GAM Seller MCP Node

by juan-sibbo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_forecast

Read-only

Retrieve a coarse Low/Mid/High availability forecast for a product family and target period, showing whether the bucket comes from a live ad-server forecast.

Instructions

Get a coarse availability forecast (Low/Mid/High) for a product family and period. synthetic tells whether the bucket comes from a live ad-server forecast.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenNoBuyer bearer JWT (RS256, aud=seller-mcp-node). Identity is derived from token.sub.
periodYesTarget period (e.g. Q4-2026, 2026-10)
family_idYesProduct family ID from discover_products
client_request_idNoIdempotency key for replay detection — required on every call unless the operator opted out; fresh value per call

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.11.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / client_request_id / description
      Previous value: -"Client-supplied idempotency key for replay detection"New value: +"Idempotency key for replay detection — required on every call unless the operator opted out; fresh value per call"
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.8.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / buyer_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Buyer identifier (opaque, B2B)",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / token / description
      Previous value: -"Domain-2 inter-service JWT (RS256)"New value: +"Buyer bearer JWT (RS256, aud=seller-mcp-node). Identity is derived from token.sub."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "buyer_id",
-  "family_id",
-  "period"
-]New value: +[
+  "family_id",
+  "period"
+]
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  4. Addedv0.1.1
  5. Removed
  6. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the result is bucketed rather than numeric, and the `synthetic` flag discloses whether the bucket derives from a live ad-server forecast or a fallback. That provenance disclosure is genuinely useful for trusting the value, though nothing is said about staleness or caching.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, and the scope statement precedes the return-value note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry part of the return-value burden and does so adequately (bucket scale plus the synthetic provenance flag). The main residual gap is routing guidance against check_availability, which is outside the strict return-value remit.

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 coverage is 100%, so family_id, period, token, and client_request_id are all documented in the schema. The description only restates the family/period inputs and does not add format, range, or default semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get), resource (availability forecast), granularity (coarse Low/Mid/High), and the two dimensions it is keyed on (product family, period). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling check_availability, which sounds like the adjacent retrieval tool.

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 word 'coarse' and the Low/Mid/High scale imply this is the cheap planning-grade lookup rather than a precise availability check, which is a usable hint. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. versus check_availability), so the agent must infer the routing.

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