Skip to main content
Glama
ludodelot

Amazon Product Research MCP Server

by ludodelot
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools are clearly distinct: search_products finds products by keyword, while get_product retrieves detailed information for a specific product. No overlap or ambiguity exists between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (search_products, get_product), making the naming predictable and easily understandable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the set feels thin for a product research server. While it covers the basic search-and-detail flow, it lacks breadth seen in more comprehensive servers, but it is not extreme enough to be a 1 or 2.

    Completeness3/5

    The tool surface provides the minimum necessary for product research—searching and retrieving details—but notably lacks capabilities like browsing categories, accessing reviews, or comparing products, which are expected in a full research context.

  • Average 3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 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.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'detailed information,' without clarifying read-only behavior, output format, error handling, authentication needs, or whether the product data may be stale or partial.

    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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to stating the tool's basic purpose, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

    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?

    The tool is simple with only one parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The phrase 'detailed information' is vague and does not tell an agent what fields or behaviors to expect, leaving an important gap for a tool that should return a product's data.

    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?

    The input schema fully documents product_id with a clear description, so high schema coverage earns the baseline score. The tool description adds only the Amazon context and does not contribute additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

    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?

    The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Amazon product'), making the core action obvious. It implies single-item retrieval versus the sibling's search-oriented behavior, but does not explicitly differentiate by naming the 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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool versus search_products, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a known product_id or when search should be used first.

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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses nothing about side effects, return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or limitations. The word 'search' only indicates the operation type, not behavioral traits. This is a severe gap for a tool that may produce complex results.

    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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose without filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

    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?

    The tool has low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), but the description is still incomplete. It does not mention what the search returns (e.g., product list, match scores), any sorting/filtering options, or constraints like pagination limits. Given no output schema, the description should at least hint at the expected result shape or scope, but it does not.

    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?

    The schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter with a clear description ('The product or keyword to search for'). The tool description's phrase 'by keyword' effectively mirrors the schema's parameter semantics, adding no new meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies.

    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 searches Amazon products by keyword. The verb 'search' and resource 'Amazon products' are specific, and the scope is defined as 'by keyword', distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_product' which likely retrieves a single product by ID. This is a clear purpose statement.

    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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where 'get_product' would be more appropriate, nor does it describe any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states the action without contextual usage instructions.

    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

amazon-product-research-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

amazon-product-research-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/ludodelot/amazon-product-research-mcp'

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