Skip to main content
Glama
satorntcg

satorntcg-mcp-server

Official
by satorntcg

create_tcgplayer_order

Creates a TCGplayer order from email data, matching line items to cards by exact name, and syncs corresponding inventory listings with deduplication safeguards for retries and manual sales.

Instructions

Create a TCGplayer order and its line items, matching each line item to a card by exact name (foil printings are matched literally, e.g. "Sinterfee (Foil)" — do not strip "(Foil)" from card_name_raw). Also creates a matching "active" listing in tcgplayer_listings (same shape the dashboard's manual "create listing" flow produces: quantity_listed bumped, no sold_price/fee/cost_basis/net_profit/quantity_owned changes yet) — even though the order email means TCGplayer already has a committed buyer, these are booked as placeholders on file and finalized later through the existing chat-based "mark sold" flow once the packing slip is printed and the order actually ships. Safe to re-run: if order_number already exists, its line items are never (re-)created, and its listing/inventory sync is only (re-)attempted if it never completed the first time (e.g. a prior call errored or timed out after the order was recorded but before the listing was synced) — so a retry after a failed call finishes the sync instead of silently no-oping. Also guards against duplicating a sale that was already recorded manually: if any of this order's cards has a manually-created tcgplayer_listings row (not one this tool made) within 3 days of the order date, listing creation is skipped (the order/items are still recorded) and the response says which existing listing to check. Two auto-created listings for the same card from different orders are never treated as duplicates — each has its own order_number, so they're genuinely separate sales.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYesLine items parsed from the order email.
ship_byNoShip-by date, YYYY-MM-DD.
ordered_atNoISO timestamp of when the order was placed.
order_totalNoAggregate order total from the email.
order_numberYese.g. F0DFDDC3-1965A5-DEF21
gmail_message_idNo
manage_order_urlNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the placeholder listing creation, idempotency (safe to re-run), retry semantics, and the manual-listing duplicate guard. It also clarifies that two auto-created listings for the same card are not duplicates. This is exceptional transparency.

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 long but every sentence earns its place, covering essential behavioral nuances. It is front-loaded with the main purpose before diving into edge cases. While it could be tightened, the length is justified by the complexity of the tool.

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 tool with this complexity (order creation, listing sync, duplicate detection, retry logic), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the placeholder nature, the manual-listing check, the retry behavior, and even mentions the response indicates which existing listing to check. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 71%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that card_name_raw must include the '(Foil)' suffix and not be stripped, and it details how items relate to listing creation. It does not explain gmail_message_id or manage_order_url, but these are likely self-explanatory metadata. The description compensates well for the coverage 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 tool creates a TCGplayer order and its line items, matching cards by exact name. It distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like get_tcgplayer_orders by emphasizing the creation and listing side-effects. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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: it is used when processing an order email, and it explains the downstream 'mark sold' flow for finalization. It also covers retry behavior and duplicate handling, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for similar actions. The context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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