horoshop-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct (list vs get, orders vs products), and auth is separate. However, horoshop_call_api is a catch-all that could overlap with any tool, introducing some ambiguity about when to use it versus the specific tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the consistent pattern horoshop_ + verb + noun (e.g., list_orders, get_order, update_order_status). The only minor deviation is horoshop_auth, but it is still a recognizable action and fits the style.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for a typical e-commerce API integration. Each tool covers a distinct core operation without unnecessary bloat or sparseness.
Completeness4/5
The core workflows for orders (list, get, update status) and products (list, get) are covered. Missing product creation/update and order creation are notable, but the horoshop_call_api fallback fills these gaps, making the surface reasonably complete.
Average 2.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the action. It does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, whether the operation is idempotent, or what is returned upon success or failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified. The phrase 'using the Horoshop API' is filler that adds no value, and the description lacks the detail needed to be useful despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description must convey return values, errors, and prerequisites. It covers none of these, making it severely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 the meaning of order_id or status_id. The agent receives no additional context about what status_id represents or what valid values exist, leaving the parameters effectively undocumented.
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 action: 'Updates an order status' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like horoshop_list_orders and horoshop_get_order through the explicit update verb, though it does not name alternatives.
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 versus horoshop_call_api or other order-related siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, sequencing, or scenarios that would favor this tool over alternatives.
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, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to mention authentication needs, potential mutation effects, rate limits, error handling, or response format. A generic 'calls any function' gives no indication of safety, side effects, or required prerequisites, making it opaque for an agent.
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 free of unnecessary words. It conveys the essential purpose without padding, achieving high conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a generic API caller with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks information about the set of available functions, authentication requirements, return values, error behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. The complexity of a dynamic API caller demands far more context than this one-liner provides.
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 schema has two parameters (function_name and params) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds minimal value beyond labeling parameters as 'arbitrary JSON parameters.' It does not explicitly explain that function_name is the API method name or that params are the arguments, leaving interpretation to inference. The description fails to 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's function clearly: 'Calls any Horoshop API function with arbitrary JSON parameters.' It identifies the verb (calls), resource (Horoshop API functions), and scope (any, arbitrary). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific endpoints, though it could better emphasize its role as a generic/low-level fallback.
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 versus the specific sibling tools (e.g., horoshop_get_order, horoshop_update_order_status). The description does not mention that this is a general-purpose tool for functions not covered by dedicated wrappers, nor does it give any context for when it should be preferred or avoided.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'returns orders' and provides no information about filtering, pagination, response format, or side effects. This is insufficient transparency for a data-fetching tool.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, its brevity contributes to missing critical details, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter. The description does not compensate for these gaps, lacking essential context such as how filters work, what the response looks like, or any prerequisites. Incomplete for effective agent use.
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?
The sole parameter 'filters' is an open object with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not mention filters or explain how to use them, leaving the agent completely in the dark about acceptable filter structure.
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 'Returns orders' and names the exact endpoint (orders/export), making it clear this lists orders. It distinguishes from sibling horoshop_get_order, which implies fetching a single order, and horoshop_list_products.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention criteria like listing all orders versus a single order, or when to use list_products instead. Only a bare statement of functionality.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says 'Authenticates' and 'returns token metadata' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., session creation, token storage), whether it is idempotent, or any rate limits or permissions needed. This is insufficient for an auth operation.
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 immediately states the core action and outcome. No wasted words.
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 tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description should still explain what authentication entails, what token metadata is returned, and the role of force_refresh. It does none of these, leaving the agent with significant gaps.
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?
The schema has one boolean parameter 'force_refresh' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter at all, so the agent receives no guidance on its meaning or when to set it. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 authenticates with Horoshop and returns token metadata, using a specific verb ('Authenticates') and resource ('Horoshop'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list/get/update orders and products.
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 versus alternatives like 'horoshop_call_api', which could also be used for auth endpoints. The description implies it is for authentication but does not state prerequisites, sequencing, or when force_refresh should be used.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only says 'Returns products using the Horoshop catalog/export endpoint,' but does not mention pagination, filter behavior, authentication requirements, or the shape of the response. The endpoint name provides mild context but not sufficient behavioral 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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action (returns products) and the data source. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 'filters' object parameter and no output schema, but the description provides no information about filter options, response format, pagination, or limits. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with meaningful filters or interpret results.
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?
The schema has one optional 'filters' object with no description, and the description does not mention filtering at all. With 0% schema coverage, the agent receives no semantic information about the sole parameter, making it unusable.
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 states 'Returns products' with a specific endpoint, clearly identifying the tool's function as listing products. The plural 'products' and endpoint name distinguish it from sibling tools like horoshop_get_product (single product) and horoshop_list_orders (orders).
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 versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for bulk listing or that horoshop_get_product is for individual products, nor does it specify any prerequisites or use cases.
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?
No annotations are provided, so description must carry full behavioral burden. It states 'returns' but does not confirm read-only nature, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format beyond the basic operation.
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?
Single, direct sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and resource.
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?
For a simple one-parameter get operation, the description is minimally sufficient. However, without output schema or annotations, it leaves ambiguity about the exact shape of the returned order and error conditions.
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 has 0% description coverage for order_id. Description only says 'by id', not adding details on format, type variations, or how to obtain the id. Fails to compensate for lack of schema documentation.
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 uses specific verb 'returns' and resource 'single order by id', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like horoshop_list_orders (multiple orders) and horoshop_get_product.
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?
Implied usage: use when you need a specific order by its id. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions compared to horoshop_list_orders or other siblings.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core operation and does not mention error behavior (e.g., not found), authentication requirements, response format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 sentence and is efficient. However, the phrase 'using the Horoshop API' is redundant given the tool name and adds no value, preventing a perfect score.
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?
For a simple get-by-id tool, the description provides the essential purpose, but with no output schema, no annotations, and no usage guidance, it leaves gaps around return shape, error cases, and prerequisites. It is minimally viable for a low-complexity tool but not fully complete.
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 shows a single parameter, product_id, with 0% description coverage. The description's phrase 'by id' adds a minimal level of meaning by confirming that product_id is the identifier, but it does not explain accepted formats, constraints, or how to handle the number/string union. It partially compensates 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 action ('Returns'), the resource ('a product'), and the key qualifier ('by id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like horoshop_list_products (which lists products) and horoshop_get_order (which fetches an order).
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 should be used when a specific product_id is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites like authentication is given.
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:

[![horoshop-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/narkov/horoshop-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/narkov/horoshop-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![horoshop-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/narkov/horoshop-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/narkov/horoshop-mcp-server)

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/narkov/horoshop-mcp-server'

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