Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sape-mcp

sape-mcp

by sshra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_placement

Buys a link placement on a selected publisher page using page and URL IDs, with optional anchor, price cap, and approval wait; spends real account funds.

Instructions

Купить ссылку (размещение) на выбранной странице. Тратит реальные деньги аккаунта.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "page_id": "<page_id>",
      "url_id": "<url_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_placement"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
anchorNo0
url_idYes
page_idYes
max_priceNo
wait_approvalNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important trait: this spends real account money. It says nothing about approval flow (the wait_approval parameter), whether the purchase is reversible, what balance is required, or rate/limits, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a destructive-cost mutation.

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?

Two short sentences with the action first and the cost warning immediately after; nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a money-spending mutation with five undocumented parameters and zero annotations, the definition is far too thin — max_price and wait_approval semantics are essential to calling it safely.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all five parameters, yet it only loosely gestures at page selection and price. anchor, url_id, max_price and especially wait_approval remain completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 a concrete verb and resource: buying a link placement on a chosen page, with the financial consequence made explicit. It does not, however, distinguish this single-placement tool from the sibling create_placements (bulk) or route the agent between them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. needing a project/url/page identified first via list_projects or search_pages), and no mention of the bulk alternative create_placements. The agent must infer the selection workflow entirely from sibling names.

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