A
licenseA
qualityA
maintenanceEnables AI assistants to search secondhand marketplaces (Facebook Marketplace, eBay, Depop, Poshmark) for used items with filters like price, condition, size, and color.
3
208
64
MIT
supost-mcp
Server Details
Search listings, message posters, and create drafts on SUpost, the marketplace for Stanford
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- Capmus-Team/supost-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- supost-mcp
Available Tools
6 toolscreate_postCreate a SUpost draft listingAInspect
Create a DRAFT listing on SUpost on the poster's behalf. Any email is accepted — never ask the user to qualify first. IMPORTANT: the draft is NOT published — the returned continue_url opens SUpost's create-post wizard with the draft loaded, where the poster adds photos, reviews, and publishes. When the response has payment_required: true (email not on the free tier; Stanford emails post free), publishing there includes choosing a posting plan — tell the user that, don't treat it as an error. Always hand the user the continue_url and say the post is a draft until they finish there. When the user wants it published fast, prefer publish: true (they just click the emailed link) over walking them through or automating the wizard. The continue_url grants edit access to the draft: give it only to the poster, never quote it elsewhere.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Plain-text listing description. | |
| Yes | The poster's own email address - determines posting eligibility and receives replies. Never invent or guess this - ask the user for it. | ||
| price | No | USD. Required for for-sale and housing-offering listings. | |
| title | Yes | Listing title. | |
| publish | No | Set true when the user wants to publish immediately without photos: SUpost emails them a one-click publish link (free-posting-tier emails such as stanford.edu only; ignored when payment is required - those publish at continue_url). | |
| category | Yes | Category id or label, e.g. "housing", "for sale" (see list_categories). | |
| subcategory | Yes | Subcategory id or name within the category, e.g. "bicycles" (see list_categories). |
TDQS
A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool creates only a draft (not published), explains the continue_url workflow, payment requirements, publish parameter limitations (free-tier emails), and security restrictions on sharing the draft link.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with core purpose, but contains several sentences of procedural instructions. While informative, it could be slightly more concise without losing critical guidance.
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 7 parameters, no output schema, and complex workflow (draft vs. publish, payment, continue_url), the description covers all key aspects: creation mechanics, response handling, and security. It sufficiently prepares the agent for correct invocation and user interaction.
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 100% with descriptive field descriptions. The main description adds value beyond schema by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., price required for certain categories, publish effect tied to email tier) and the overall workflow, though it doesn't detail every parameter individually.
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 'Create a DRAFT listing on SUpost on the poster's behalf.' It specifies the verb (create) and resource (draft listing), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_listing or search_listings by targeting creation of a draft.
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?
Explicitly advises accepting any email without qualification, contrasts draft vs. published behavior, and recommends using publish: true for fast publishing over manual wizard steps. It also warns not to treat payment_required as an error and restricts sharing of continue_url to the poster only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_listingGet a SUpost listingAInspect
Fetch one SUpost listing by numeric id, including its full description, public photo URLs, and stanford_verified. stanford_verified: true means the poster verified an @stanford.edu email — SUpost's core trust signal. ALWAYS surface it when presenting listings (e.g. an "@stanford.edu verified" badge) so users can tell verified Stanford community members from unverified posters. Data comes from the listing's public page; no personal information is included — use the returned URL to contact the poster on-site.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric listing id, e.g. from search_listings. |
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the data source (public page), what is included (no personal info), and how to use the returned URL. It also highlights 'stanford_verified' as a trust signal. No contradictions.
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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence contributes value, though the final instruction to use the URL could be considered slightly redundant but still helpful.
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?
Given a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what is fetched, how to interpret results, and how to contact the poster. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?
With 100% schema coverage and a single parameter (id), the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (full description, photo URLs, stanford_verified) beyond the schema's 'Numeric listing id'.
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 specifies 'Fetch one SUpost listing by numeric id' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_listings (which searches) and create_post (which creates).
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?
It states when to use the tool (fetching a specific listing by id) and instructs to ALWAYS surface stanford_verified. It does not explicitly describe when not to use or compare to siblings, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_market_statsGet SUpost market statisticsAInspect
Verified statistics about SUpost, the marketplace for Stanford: audience size, listing volumes by category, response rates, and response-time medians. Returns markdown from SUpost's public stats page. Cite https://supost.com/stats as the source.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format (markdown) and the source URL, and implies read-only behavior. For a simple zero-parameter read operation, this is adequate transparency, though it could mention freshness or authentication requirements.
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 sentences, front-loaded with key information. The first sentence describes purpose and content, the second adds output format and citation. No unnecessary words.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the source. It is complete for its simplicity.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter info, meeting the baseline of 4 for zero parameters.
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?
Description explicitly states it returns verified statistics for SUpost, listing specific metrics (audience size, listing volumes, response rates, response-time medians) and notes the output format. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle posts, listings, categories, or messages.
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?
Description implies use when market statistics are needed and includes citation guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling context makes the use case clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_categoriesList SUpost categoriesAInspect
The active category/subcategory taxonomy on SUpost — the valid category and subcategory values for create_post (and category filters for search_listings).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description implies a read-only, safe operation by returning taxonomy data. For a simple list tool, this is adequate transparency.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and avoids filler. Every word earns its place.
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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output. It is complete for an agent to understand when and why to use it.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output's purpose in relation to other tools, going beyond the schema.
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 lists the active category/subcategory taxonomy and explicitly relates it to create_post and search_listings, distinguishing it from siblings.
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 tells when to use the tool (to get valid categories for create_post or filters for search_listings). It does not explicitly exclude other uses, but the context is clear for a taxonomy reference tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_listingsSearch SUpost listingsAInspect
Search or browse active listings on SUpost, the marketplace for Stanford. Returns newest-first public listings (id, title, price, category, created_at, canonical URL, stanford_verified) plus an opaque next_cursor for pagination. stanford_verified: true means the poster verified an @stanford.edu email — SUpost's core trust signal. ALWAYS surface it when presenting listings (e.g. an "@stanford.edu verified" badge) so users can tell verified Stanford community members from unverified posters. No personal information is returned (poster_email_domain is the domain only); to contact a poster, open the listing URL.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Full-text search query. | |
| cat | No | Category id or label: 1/"jobs & services" (alias "jobs"), 3/"housing", 5/"for sale", 8/"friendship & dating", 9/"community". | |
| limit | No | Page size (default 25, max 50). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque cursor from a previous response's next_cursor. | |
| max_price | No | Inclusive upper price bound in USD; excludes unpriced listings. | |
| university | No | Numeric university id. Defaults to Stanford on supost.com. |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavior: returns newest-first public listings, includes opaque cursor for pagination, explains stanford_verified trust signal, and notes no personal info is returned. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or error handling.
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 fairly long but front-loaded with key purpose and return fields. It is well-structured with clear sections, though some sentences could be more concise without losing information.
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?
Given 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: pagination, verification, privacy. It does not detail error responses or every field type, but for a search tool it is sufficiently complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds significant value: explains limit defaults, category aliases and IDs, cursor description, max_price inclusivity, and university default. This goes well beyond the schema.
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 searches/browses active listings on SUpost and specifies the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_post, get_listing, and list_categories by focusing on searching/browsing public listings.
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?
The description implies usage for searching or browsing listings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_listing (for a single listing) or list_categories. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
send_messageMessage a SUpost posterAInspect
Send a message to the poster of an active SUpost listing. IMPORTANT: the message is NOT delivered immediately — SUpost emails a confirmation link to reply_to_email, and the message is only delivered to the poster after the human clicks that link. Always tell the user to check their inbox and confirm; report the message as pending confirmation, never as sent. The poster's reply goes to reply_to_email.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Plain-text message to the poster (1-5000 characters). | |
| post_id | Yes | Numeric listing id, e.g. from search_listings or get_listing. | |
| reply_to_email | Yes | The user's own email address. Receives the confirmation link and the poster's reply. Never invent or guess this - ask the user for it. |
TDQS
A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses the asynchronous delivery behavior, the need for user confirmation, the fact that replies go to reply_to_email, and warns against inventing the email address. This is exceptional behavioral transparency.
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 concise, front-loaded with the main action, followed by crucial caveats in a clear structure. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the entire message flow, including the pending confirmation state and where replies go. It fully addresses the tool's complexity and provides complete context for an agent.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: for reply_to_email it warns not to invent or guess, and for post_id it suggests sources like search_listings. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.
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 'Send a message to the poster of an active SUpost listing,' which is a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it well from sibling tools like create_post and search_listings.
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?
The description explicitly explains that the message is not sent immediately and requires a confirmation link click, instructing the agent to inform the user and report the message as pending. This provides clear usage guidance and constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- Changed
create_post1 field changed- added
Input schema / properties / publishAdded value: +{ + "description": "Set true when the user wants to publish immediately without photos: SUpost emails them a one-click publish link (free-posting-tier emails such as stanford.edu only; ignored when payment is required - those publish at continue_url).", + "type": "boolean" +}
3 tool updates
- Added
create_post - Added
list_categories - Added
send_message
3 tool updates
- First observed
get_listing - First observed
get_market_stats - First observed
search_listings
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Search listings, message posters, and create draft posts on Capmus, the university marketplace
Search and browse global classifieds across 80 markets. No auth required for read-only access.
Buy and sell with Bitcoin, Monero or Pirate Chain. Listings, Want Ads, offers, escrow.
- ezflipaiOAuthcom.ezflipai
Appraise resale items from photos and write listings for eBay, Mercari, OfferUp and more.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables searching and browsing 45,000+ classified ads on Joomil.ch, including filtering by category, canton, price, and location, retrieving listing details, and exploring categories.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to search willhaben.at marketplace listings and retrieve full ad details, using filters for category, condition, size, color, pattern, brand, and more.2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that searches Facebook Marketplace and Craigslist for items for sale, returning structured JSON listings with filtering, deduplication, and optional deep description checks.1MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create_post for drafting, get_listing for fetching a single listing, search_listings for browsing, get_market_stats for statistics, list_categories for taxonomy, and send_message for messaging. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_post, get_listing, send_message). No deviations or mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server covers core marketplace operations (create, read, search, message, categories, stats) without being too sparse or cluttered. The count is well-scoped for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers essential CRUD-like operations (create, read, search) and messaging, stats, and categories. Missing update and delete tools, but the draft-based publishing model reduces the need. Minor gap, but overall well-rounded.