list_services
List all available services for purchase on run.pay marketplace
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | ||
| category | No |
run.pay
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List all available services' with no mention of authentication, pagination, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a marketplace listing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacking any structure. It could be improved by front-loading key info or adding brief parameter details.
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?
Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description fails to mention pagination, sorting, filtering behavior, or return format. For a listing endpoint, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (search, category). Their purpose is entirely inferred from schema field names, adding no value beyond the raw schema.
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 clearly states the action (List) and resource (services) with context (run.pay marketplace). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'call_service' by indicating this is for browsing/purchase listing, though not explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'call_service'. The description does not specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists available services, the other calls a service and processes payment. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_services and call_service. The naming convention is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count3/5
With only two tools, the server feels minimal for a marketplace and payment service. While it covers basic listing and purchase, more tools (e.g., for service details, cancellations) would be expected.
Completeness2/5
The tool surface has significant gaps: there is no way to view service details beyond listing, no cancellation, no user account management, and no means to handle errors or refunds. Essential lifecycle operations are missing.