Skip to main content
Glama

Build a ready-to-send request

pc_build_request
Read-only

Build a Partner Center REST request as structured data: resolved URL, headers, and body skeleton. Use it to get a request object for your own client without sending it.

Instructions

Assemble one Partner Center REST request as structured data: the resolved URL with your params substituted into the path placeholders, concrete headers (Bearer plus a freshly generated MS-RequestId on writes), and a request-body skeleton derived from the operation's documented fields. Use this when you want an object to send from your own client. For a language-specific code snippet use pc_generate_call instead, and to lint a request you already wrote use pc_validate_request. Read-only and offline: the request is constructed and handed back, never sent, and the Authorization header is a <access-token> placeholder — no credentials are read or required. Not idempotent in one respect: a random MS-RequestId is minted on each call for write operations, so reuse the returned value across retries rather than calling again. Unsupplied placeholders are reported in missingParams rather than failing, and an unknown id returns ok:false with suggestions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesExact scenario id in kebab-case, e.g. "create-cart". Case-sensitive; discover ids with pc_list_scenarios or any pc_plan_* tool.
paramsNoValues for the {placeholder} segments in the operation's path, as a flat string-to-string map — e.g. { "customer-id": "c7f6e4b1-...", "subscription-id": "..." }. Keys are matched loosely, so "customer-id", "customerId", and "customerid" all work. Values are URL-encoded for you. Omit it, or leave some out, to get the URL with those placeholders intact and the names listed in `missingParams`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesTrue when the call succeeded and `data` is populated; false when `error` explains why not.
dataNoThe result payload. Present only when `ok` is true.
errorNoHuman-readable reason the call failed. Present only when `ok` is false.
suggestionsNoValid values to retry with, returned alongside `error` when the requested identifier was not found.
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the request is never sent, the Authorization header is a placeholder, a fresh MS-RequestId is minted on each call for write operations (explaining the idempotentHint=false), unsupplied placeholders appear in missingParams instead of failing, and unknown IDs return ok:false with suggestions. This richly supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 structured paragraph with front-loaded purpose, followed by usage guidance, then important caveats. Every sentence earns its place, and despite being ~160 words, it packs detailed behavior without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (request assembly, auth headers, non-idempotency, error handling) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what gets returned (URL, headers, body skeleton), the non-sending nature, authentication behavior, retry guidance, and error behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While the schema already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics: values are URL-encoded automatically, key matching is loose ('customer-id', 'customerId', 'customerid' all work), and omitting params yields the URL with placeholders intact plus missingParams. This goes well beyond the schema, making it easy to use correctly.

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 opens with a precise verb and object: 'Assemble one Partner Center REST request as structured data,' and enumerates the output components. It clearly differentiates from siblings by naming pc_generate_call and pc_validate_request as alternatives, so an agent can easily distinguish this tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit 'Use this when' and alternatives are provided: 'For a language-specific code snippet use pc_generate_call instead, and to lint a request you already wrote use pc_validate_request.' It also suggests how to discover scenario IDs with pc_list_scenarios or pc_plan_* tools, giving clear contextual direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/tunahanaliozturk/partner-center-mcp'

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