Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nubiia-dev

MCP Holded

by nubiia-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_products

Retrieve products from Holded with cursor-based pagination, control page size, and project only needed fields to reduce response size.

Instructions

List products (Holded API v2). Cursor-paginated: pass the previous response nextCursor as cursor. Server-paginated; use limit to control page size. Response fields are snake_case; amounts are strings with decimal comma.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax items per page (server-paginated; use limit to control page size)
cursorNoCursor from a previous response nextCursor
fieldsNoProject only these fields per item (e.g. ["id", "name", "sku"]). Reduces response size.
summaryNoReturn only count and pagination metadata without items (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.0.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / cursor
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Cursor from a previous response nextCursor",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / fields / description
      Previous value: -"Select specific fields to return (e.g., [\"id\", \"name\", \"price\"]). Reduces response size by 70-90%. If not provided, returns default fields: id, name, sku, price, stock"New value: +"Project only these fields per item (e.g. [\"id\", \"name\", \"sku\"]). Reduces response size."
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Maximum number of items to return (default: 50, max: 500)"New value: +"Max items per page (server-paginated; use limit to control page size)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / page
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Page number for pagination (optional)",
-  "type": "number"
-}
  2. First observedv1.6.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavior: server-side pagination driven by nextCursor and the response conventions (snake_case keys, amounts as decimal-comma strings). It does not state permission/auth needs, rate limits, or default ordering, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then pagination mechanics, then response format. No filler and no repetition.

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 4-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, pagination and return-format disclosure cover the main unknowns. Missing defaults (page size, sort order) and auth expectations keep it from being 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, cursor, fields and summary are all already documented. The description's cursor hint largely restates the schema and it never mentions 'fields' projection or 'summary', so it adds little beyond the structured data.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('List products') plus the source API, and the plural form cleanly separates it from get_product, create_product, update_product and delete_product in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the pagination instructions; the description never says when to prefer this over get_product or list_product_images, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The cursor loop instruction is operational guidance, not selection guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools