korea-ecommerce-integrated-channel-mcp

by minwoo19930301

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct: product lifecycle actions (publish/update/stop/resume/delete) are clearly separated, and profile operations are separate from channel state. Some overlap exists between channel_capabilities and channel_health, but their focus (installed config vs. health checks) is distinct enough to avoid confusion.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a noun_verb pattern (e.g., product_get, product_publish), but channel_capabilities and channel_health use noun_noun state descriptors. Also, profile_list uses 'list' for retrieval while product_get uses 'get', introducing inconsistent verbs for similar operations.
Tool Count5/5
11 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for an e-commerce channel management server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the workflow (channel inspection, profile management, product operations, and async tracking), so none feel redundant or excessive.
Completeness4/5
The product lifecycle is well covered with publish, update, stop, resume, and delete, plus retrieval. Profile management is limited to list and preview (no CRUD), and there is no product listing/search, but core publishing, syncing, and operation tracking are present. Minor gaps remain around profile editing and broader product enumeration.
Average 3.6/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds the 'Preview' option, suggesting a non-destructive dry-run mode, which provides some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose what exactly gets destroyed, approvals required, or external side effects, so it adds limited value beyond annotations.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Preview or stop') and resource ('product'), making it easy to parse. While it is brief, it is well-structured and to the point, though it misses details that might have made it even more useful.
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?
Given the complex nested schema with 7+ parameters, safety mechanisms (idempotency key, approval token, expected external IDs), and an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to explain the preview/execute workflow, multi-channel behavior, approval requirements, or any safety considerations. The description covers only the basic action, leaving the agent without essential operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. It only mentions 'every selected channel' which relates to the 'channels' parameter, but leaves sku, confirm, dry_run, approval_token, idempotency_key, and expected_external_ids undefined. The schema has minimal descriptions beyond field names, so the agent gets no semantic guidance for these critical parameters.
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 the tool's function: to preview or stop a product on selected channels. The verb 'stop' and resource 'product' distinguish it from sibling tools like product_publish or product_resume, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The 'preview' aspect adds a mode, which is slightly ambiguous but still conveys the primary intent.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for stopping product sales, but does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like product_delete or product_resume. There is no explicit context for selecting this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add context beyond those. It adds that the tool reports configuration/connector checks and inspects network_checked, but provides little detail on what those checks entail or how results are shaped.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with no redundant phrasing, making it easy to parse. It could be slightly more structured or complete, but it is appropriately brief for a tool without parameters.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, annotations, and no parameters, the description is minimally acceptable. However, it does not clarify what distinguishes this tool from 'channel_capabilities' or what 'network_checked' semantically means, leaving some context gaps for an agent deciding when to invoke it.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4.
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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and identifies a resource ('configuration and connector-supported checks'), with an additional inspectable field 'network_checked.' It is clear enough about health reporting but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'channel_capabilities' tool.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'channel_capabilities,' 'profile_list,' or 'product_get.' No exclusions, prerequisites, or decision rules are provided, so the agent must infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it operates on 'mapped product across selected channels' and can be 'permanently' deleted, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose the approval token requirement, the two-phase confirmation flow (PREVIEW/EXECUTE), or any external side effects, leaving behavioral transparency only partially enhanced beyond 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action ('Preview or permanently delete') and the object ('mapped product across selected channels'). It is concise with no redundant information, making it easy to parse.
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?
Despite having an output schema and annotations, the tool is complex: it contains a nested command object with safety mechanisms (approval_token, expected_external_ids, idempotency_key) and a dual preview/execution mode. The description is far too brief to explain the required workflow—such as previewing before deleting or needing an approval token—leaving an agent without enough context to safely and correctly invoke this destructive tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters such as sku, channels, confirm, dry_run, approval_token, confirm_delete, idempotency_key, or expected_external_ids. The phrase 'Preview or permanently delete' vaguely relates to the confirm/dry_run fields but gives no meaningful semantics, so an agent has no guidance on how to fill these fields correctly.
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 uses the specific verb 'delete' and identifies the resource as 'a mapped product across selected channels,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like product_update, product_stop, and product_resume. It also introduces two modes—'Preview or permanently delete'—which adds precision about the tool's capability.
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 the tool is for deleting mapped products from channels, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over product_stop or product_resume, nor does it mention prerequisites like having a mapped product or an approval token. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and openWorldHint=true (external side effects), but the description adds no behavioral context—it doesn't warn about irreversible changes, approval token requirements, or the difference between preview (dry run) and execute. It merely restates the action without disclosing side effects.
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 that efficiently conveys the core action. No wasted words or redundant details.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has a complex command object with multiple required parameters, a dual preview/execute mode, and external side effects. This one-sentence description does not explain the workflow, approval process, or how it differs from other lifecycle operations, making it insufficient for correct invocation.
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 only clarifies the 'channels' parameter ('every selected channel'). Critical parameters like sku, confirm, idempotency_key, and approval_token are not explained, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 specifies a clear verb+resource+scope: 'Preview or resume a product on every selected channel.' It distinguishes from siblings like product_stop and product_publish by focusing on the 'resume' action, which is a distinct lifecycle operation.
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 usage is for resuming a paused product on selected channels, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like product_publish or product_stop, nor any exclusions. Context from the name/title suggests the intended scenario, but explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the return content (canonical product and per-channel external identifiers) but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like authorization requirements or rate limits.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. It contains no redundant phrasing or filler, making it highly scannable.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects), annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core purpose and return content. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance, but that doesn't undermine completeness for this straightforward read tool.
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 does not compensate by explaining the 'sku' parameter. It doesn't mention what sku stands for, its format, or how it relates to the product, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.
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 uses a specific verb 'read' and a specific resource 'canonical product and its per-channel external identifiers', making it clear this is a retrieval operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like product_update, product_delete, and product_publish by focusing on reading rather than mutating or publishing.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does without mentioning any other tools, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
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?
The description adds useful context beyond annotations by revealing preview/execute modes and parallel execution across channels. It does not describe per-channel failure behavior or side effects, but annotations already cover readOnly, idempotency, and destructiveness.
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?
A single, well-formed sentence conveys the core action and scope without wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 a complex input schema (nested product and payload objects, approval tokens, idempotency keys) but the description is too terse to convey the full invocation workflow. It lacks guidance on preview vs execute, approval prerequisites, and handling partial failures.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the command structure, but it only hints at channels and preview/execute. It does not explain confirm, approval_token, idempotency_key, or payloads.
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 specifies the action (preview or create), the object (a master product), and the scope (across all selected channels in parallel). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like product_update and product_delete.
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 multi-channel and preview/execute context imply its intended use, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use publish versus update, stop, or delete. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the valuable behavioral context that no external seller API is called, reinforcing that this is a local, side-effect-free operation. It does not detail output format, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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 that names the action and the key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
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?
The output schema and annotations cover return structure and safety, but the description leaves 'reviewed profile' undefined and does not clarify prerequisites or what rendering entails. It is adequate for a simple preview tool, but has clear informational gaps.
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 does not explain either required parameter. The product parameter is partially clarified by the detailed MasterProduct schema, but profile_id has no added meaning, and the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 renders/previews a profile and explicitly notes it does so without calling any external seller API, making the action and scope unambiguous. The verb 'Render' plus the resource 'reviewed profile' distinguishes it from external publishing operations.
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 phrase 'without calling any external seller API' implies a safe, read-only preview use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use instructions, prerequisites (e.g., the profile must be reviewed), or alternatives such as product_publish. Usage guidance is left largely implicit.
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?
It discloses dual-mode behavior (preview vs update), parallel execution, and the prerequisite that the product must be mapped—context not present in annotations. It does not mention approval token requirements or side effects beyond annotations, but annotations already signal mutation and non-idempotence.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence conveys the operation mode, target, and scope with no redundant wording. Every word earns its place.
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?
The one-line description is enough for tool selection but under-specifies the execution workflow (confirm/dry_run, idempotency_key, approval_token) for a tool with rich side effects. The input/output schemas and annotations reduce the burden, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 does not explain the 'command' object or its fields. It only hints at 'channels' and 'preview/update' semantics, leaving the agent to rely entirely on 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 uses a specific verb ('preview or update') and resource ('mapped product') across selected channels, clearly distinguishing this from sibling publish/delete/stop/resume operations. It also conveys the dual-mode nature and the parallel execution scope.
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?
It clearly implies use for modifying an existing mapped product on one or more channels, and mentions a preview mode for safe evaluation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false, which the description confirms with 'Show'. The description adds specific context about the result contents (connectors, configuration state, operations) beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't disclose any additional behaviors like authentication or caching expectations. Given annotation coverage, this is solid.
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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the purpose without any redundancy or filler. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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?
Given no parameters, a straightforward purpose, and an output schema, the description is completely adequate. The sibling tool context does not require additional disambiguation because the description already specifies its unique scope.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. A baseline score of 4 applies because the description need not compensate for any schema gaps.
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 lists seller-channel capabilities, specifying the types of information shown (installed connectors, configuration state, supported operations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like channel_health which likely focuses on health status.
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 provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools. The readOnlyHint annotation implies safe usage, but the description itself lacks any usage direction.
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?
Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context about per-channel partial failures, which is not covered by annotations and helps the agent understand potential response complexity. No contradiction with 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The description conveys the essential purpose in one line and 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?
For a simple read tool with one self-explanatory parameter and an output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a notable behavioral detail. The lack of explicit parameter semantics is a minor gap, but the overall context is sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
The only parameter, job_id, has no schema description (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explicitly explain its meaning or format. While the name strongly implies it identifies the operation, the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 verb and resource: 'Read a persisted operation' with the specific detail of 'per-channel partial failures.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like product_get, which target products rather than operations.
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 implies when to use the tool (to retrieve a fan-out operation result) and even highlights a specific use case (checking per-channel partial failures). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough given the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds context about the profiles being 'local' and 'reviewed' and their purpose, but reveals no additional behavioral details like output ordering or pagination, which the output schema likely covers.
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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded, stating exactly what the tool does without any extraneous words.
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?
For a simple list tool with no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and context. No meaningful gaps remain.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies, as the description provides no parameter-specific information but none is needed.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource of 'local payload profiles' and a definite purpose: 'turn one master product into channel bodies.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like profile_preview or channel_capabilities.
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 this tool (when you need to list available profiles for transforming master products), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it. No comparison with sibling tools is provided.
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

korea-ecommerce-integrated-channel-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![korea-ecommerce-integrated-channel-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/minwoo19930301/korea-ecommerce-integrated-channel-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/minwoo19930301/korea-ecommerce-integrated-channel-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![korea-ecommerce-integrated-channel-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/minwoo19930301/korea-ecommerce-integrated-channel-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/minwoo19930301/korea-ecommerce-integrated-channel-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/minwoo19930301/korea-ecommerce-integrated-channel-mcp'

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