Provides tools for interacting with eBay's Commerce Identity and Buy Browse APIs, enabling user profile verification, item search and retrieval, and automatic token refresh via OAuth 2.0.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@ebay-mcp search for vintage cameras on eBay"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
eBay Developers Program の OAuth 2.0（User access token） で呼び出す REST API を、Cursor / Claude から使うための Model Context Protocol サーバーです。
実行には Python 3.10 以上が必要です。macOS の /usr/bin/python3 が 3.9 の場合は、/opt/homebrew/bin/python3.11 -m venv .venv のように新しいランタイムで仮想環境を作成してください。
Commerce Identity — サインインしたアカウントのプロフィール検証（GET /commerce/identity/v1/user/）
Buy Browse — item_summary/search と単品 item/{id} の取得
トークン更新 — EBAY_REFRESH_TOKEN があれば 401 時に自動でリフレッシュを試行（プロセス内のみ）
OAuth 補助 — ebay-mcp-auth で Authorization Code を取得し、mcp.json 用の env 断片を表示
Related MCP server: eBay MCP Server
変数 | 例 / 説明 |
|
|
| Developer Portal の App Id（OAuth Client Id） |
| Cert Id（Client Secret）。漏洩したら Dev Console で Rotate / 再発行 してください |
| User access token（ |
| 推奨（User モード時）。application のみ運用では不要 |
|
|
| application token 用 scope（既定 |
| 既定 |
| 任意。将来の Notification 等で使う場合に |
|
|
|
|
| 既定 |
ユーザーがチャットなどに貼った Cert Id は無効化（ローテーション）済みとして扱い、mcp.json の env のみへ再設定することを強く推奨します。
ebay-mcp-auth）Keys → User Tokens (OAuth) で Ru Name に次と一致する Redirect URL を登録
（例）https://127.0.0.1:8765/callback
端末から:
cd projects/ebay-mcp
python -m venv .venv && source .venv/bin/activate
pip install -e .
export EBAY_ENV=sandbox
export EBAY_CLIENT_ID="<App Id>"
export EBAY_CLIENT_SECRET="<Cert Id>"
export EBAY_REDIRECT_URI="https://127.0.0.1:8765/callback"
python -m ebay_mcp.authブラウザで eBay にサインインし、許可後に自動で localhost に戻ります。表示された mcp.json フラグメント の env を Cursor の MCP 設定へマージします。
コードだけ貼った場合は、リダイレクト URL に含まれる code= を次のように渡します。
ebay-mcp-auth --code '<code の値のみ>'Browse 検索などで権限エラーになる場合は、Dev Console で 追加の OAuth scope に対応した Ru Name / アプリ権限があるか確認し、EBAY_OAUTH_SCOPE を拡張してください。
EBAY_ENV=sandbox EBAY_CLIENT_ID=... EBAY_CLIENT_SECRET=... EBAY_ACCESS_TOKEN=... EBAY_REFRESH_TOKEN=... \\
ebay-mcp-check成功時末尾に OK: end-to-end eBay access works. が表示されます。
examples/cursor_mcp_config.example.json を参考にしてください。公開前は uvx --from /abs/path/to/projects/ebay-mcp でローカルパス指定もできます。
MIT License © 2026 taka392
GET a single Browse listing by REST item id (encode-safe; pass the v1 item id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It notes 'GET' implying read-only but omits authentication needs, error behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. The 'encode-safe' note adds minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and parameter hint without excess. It could include more behavioral detail without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (1 param, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness regarding authentication, errors, and alternative tool use. With no annotations, more detail would be warranted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds 'REST item id' and 'encode-safe; pass the v1 item id', clarifying the parameter's type and encoding requirement beyond the bare schema property.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it is a GET operation for a single Browse listing by REST item id, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool search_item_summary which implies searching rather than single-item retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the sibling tools suggest a search alternative, the description does not articulate selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Refresh tokens in-process only.
User mode: EBAY_REFRESH_TOKEN grant. Application mode: client_credentials refetch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the tool refreshes tokens and mentions two modes, but does not cover side effects, required credentials, or failure conditions. Some behavioral context is provided but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple token refresh tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and modes adequately. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., existing refresh token), but overall is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description adds no parameter info but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Refresh tokens in-process only' and details two modes (user and application), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_item_summary and search_item_summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage during a session ('in-process only') and lists two modes but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or prerequisites for each mode.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search marketplace listings (Browse item_summary/search).
Typical filters: limit 1–50 for quick previews. category_ids is optional (comma-separated eBay leaf category ids).
Sort: omit for Best Match; use newlyListed for newest listings first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| category_ids | No | ||
| sort | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions limit range and sort behavior, but lacks details on query semantics, pagination (offset), authentication, or rate limits. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three focused sentences, no redundant information, and front-loaded with the primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and reasonable parameter hints, missing context on query semantics, offset usage, and authentication requirements. Adequate for a simple search tool but could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It describes limit (1-50), category_ids (comma-separated leaf ids), and sort (Best Match vs newlyListed). However, query and offset are not described, so only partial coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Search marketplace listings' which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_item_summary (single item retrieval) and auth/verify tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides typical filter usage (limit 1-50 for previews, category_ids optional, sort options). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is clear and no alternative search tool exists among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Verify credentials.
User token: Commerce Identity profile. Application-only keyset: Browse ping + totals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must explain behavioral traits. It only states the tool verifies credentials but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes valuable detail on credential types without any unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and covers credential types. It could mention the return value briefly, but the output schema compensates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has no parameters and 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds no further parameter information, which is acceptable given no parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool verifies credentials, and specifies the two credential types it handles (User token and Application-only keyset), making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like get_item_summary and refresh_access_token.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on when to use this tool (for verifying credentials) and implicitly differentiates from siblings by naming credential types, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each tool serves a unique purpose: retrieving a single item, refreshing tokens, searching listings, and verifying credentials. No overlap exists.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive verbs (get, refresh, search, verify). No mixing of conventions.
Four tools are well-scoped for an eBay browsing and authentication server, covering essential operations without unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers browsing (search and get item), token management, and credential verification. For the apparent purpose, no obvious gaps.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Run an eBay seller account from your AI assistant: orders, listings, stock, fees and payouts.
Manage Microsoft 365 email, calendar, contacts and inbox rules via the Graph API with OAuth 2.0.
OAuth 2.1 short-link tools for AI agents with scoped tokens, approvals, audit logs, and revocation.
Remote MCP connector for eBay, Shopify, Best Buy & Etsy marketplace data via the Commerce API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/taka392/ebay-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
