marketplace-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.3
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: marketplace vs shopstr domains, products vs stalls vs shops, and a dedicated confirmation tool. The purpose of each tool is clearly differentiated.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the pattern '<domain>_<action>_<resource>', with consistent verbs like create_or_update, list, and confirm. The prefix cleanly separates the two domains.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools cover the essential operations for a marketplace seller: managing stalls and products for two protocols, listing them, and a confirmation step. No tool feels redundant or missing.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers create/update and reading for stalls and products across two protocols, plus a confirmation step. Missing deletion or archival tools, but the core workflows are well-covered.
Average 4.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes replaceability behavior via parameterized-replaceable identifier and mentions the safety pipeline (read-only, signer, rate limit, optional confirm). With no annotations, this provides adequate transparency for a mutation tool.
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?
Three concise sentences: core purpose, replaceability detail, and UI/safety pipeline. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.
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 5-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers replaceability and safety. No output schema is needed, but return values or errors are not mentioned. Sibling tools are distinct, so no confusion.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds minor value (e.g., 'id replaces prior stall', 'Shopstr also accepts ISO 4217') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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?
Clearly states 'Create or update a NIP-15 marketplace stall (kind:30017)', using specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like marketplace_create_or_update_product by focusing on stalls.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions Shopstr as canonical UI, implying usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a product or listing stalls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: fetching from configured relays, parsing, and returning parsed or null for schema failures. It omits details like authentication requirements or error handling.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, efficient and no fluff.
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?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description is fairly complete, covering purpose, returns, and edge case. Could explicitly state that it only lists stalls for the authenticated user.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. The description explains the tool's action and output, adding meaning beyond the empty schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 that the tool fetches and parses NIP-15 stalls (kind:30017) for the current signer, specifying the returned fields and handling of invalid stalls. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like marketplace_list_my_products.
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 when to use (to list stalls) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Sibling tools exist but no direct comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behavioral traits: product data in tags, summary as content, d-tag replacement, cache posting, and safety pipeline. With no annotations, this is adequate, though the safety pipeline could be more detailed.
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?
Concise and well-structured: a few sentences covering purpose, format, behavior, and pipeline without redundancy. Every sentence adds essential context.
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?
Covers overall workflow and key behaviors for 14 parameters, but lacks return value description (no output schema). Still fairly complete given the tool's complexity.
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?
Adds value beyond schema by explaining that summary goes into content and a summary tag, and categories are lowercased. Schema coverage is 93%, so most parameters are already described; these extra details enhance understanding.
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?
Clearly states it creates or updates a Shopstr-compatible product as a NIP-99 classified listing (kind:30402), differentiating from sibling tools like marketplace_create_or_update_product which likely target a different marketplace.
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?
Implies usage for Shopstr products but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like marketplace_create_or_update_product or shopstr_create_or_update_shop. The description focuses on behavior (e.g., id replaces prior listing) but not context-based selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals the safety pipeline re-runs before signing and automatic cache hook attachment for Shopstr-modern tools, giving good behavioral insight beyond the basic action.
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?
Three sentences, no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and additional context follows naturally.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a simple confirm action: explains what it does, when to use it, token handling, and special behavior for related tools. No missing information given the low complexity.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage on the single 'token' parameter. Description reinforces it as one-time and single-use but does not add significantly beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool executes a previously-prepared marketplace publish using a one-time token, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create/update or list items.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions the context when meaningful (NOSTR_REQUIRE_CONFIRM=true) and provides important usage notes (single-use token, safety pipeline re-runs). Could be more explicit about when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions safety pipeline (read-only, signer, rate limit, confirm) and upsert behavior (republishing replaces). It does not detail failure modes or permissions, but the upsert and safety pipeline disclosure is adequate.
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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds meaningful information. No redundant or vague statements.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (11 params, 4 required, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, idempotency, relationship constraints, and safety pipeline. It does not explain return values or error handling, but those are not explicitly required without an output schema.
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 coverage is 73%, many parameters have descriptions. The description adds value by explaining id's role as d-tag, stall_id's relationship, and categories as t tags with lowercase recommendation. This enhances understanding beyond 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 (create or update), the resource (NIP-15 product kind:30018), and the context (within a stall). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the NIP-15 standard and stall relationship.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage guidance: stall must exist (stall_id must match existing stall's id) and explains that republishing with same id replaces. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the context and sibling tools make it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects: posting to Shopstr's cache after relay publish, running a safety pipeline (read-only, signer, rate limit, optional confirm), and the uniqueness constraint (one shop per pubkey). This exceeds expectations for transparency.
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 only four sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, key constraint, side effect, and safety pipeline. It is front-loaded and efficient with no redundant text.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description explains the implicit d tag (pubkey) and the cache posting side effect. It lacks details on error handling or update behavior, but overall is adequate for the complexity.
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?
All 4 parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal extra meaning. The baseline of 3 applies; the description does not compensate further.
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?
Description clearly states 'Create or update the seller's Shopstr shop profile (kind:30019)', specifying both the verb and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like marketplace_create_or_update_stall or shopstr_create_or_update_product by focusing specifically on the shop profile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (creating/updating a shop) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The mention of a per-pubkey limitation ('one shop per pubkey') adds useful guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: client-side filtering, return of parsed JSON fields, handling of invalid content (non-JSON or schema-invalid products return parsed: null). Also mentions fetch limit and hard cap.
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?
Description is concise, with three sentences covering purpose, filter behavior, and error handling. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the complexity (NIP-15, client-side filtering, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns and how it handles edge cases. Does not cover authentication or rate limits, but these may be implicit for the current signer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but description adds significant value: explains that stall_id filter is applied client-side due to relay limitations, and that limit has a hard cap of 500. Also clarifies the behavior when content is invalid, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.
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?
Explicitly states it fetches and parses the current signer's NIP-15 products (kind:30018) and lists the returned fields. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like marketplace_create_or_update_product or marketplace_list_my_stalls by focusing on listing products.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context for when to use, including the optional stall_id filter and its client-side limitation. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear and the sibling tools are different functions.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![marketplace-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/llmops-pro/marketplace-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/llmops-pro/marketplace-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![marketplace-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/llmops-pro/marketplace-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/llmops-pro/marketplace-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/llmops-pro/marketplace-mcp'

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