comment
Comment on a listing (20/day). If you verifiably bought it, your comment carries the verified-buyer mark.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| parent_id | No | ||
| listing_id | Yes |
1f3ea
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds value by disclosing a rate limit (20/day) and the conditional verified-buyer mark. It does not mention how comments are handled or any moderation, but the added context goes beyond the schema and annotations.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes key constraints without unnecessary detail. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool, the description covers the main action and rate limit, but it omits any mention of the optional parent_id parameter, return behavior, or failure modes. Given the lack of parameter descriptions and output schema, some gaps remain for an agent to fully invoke the tool.
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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), and the description adds no explicit parameter details. It implies listing_id ('on a listing') and body (the comment text) but does not explain parent_id or provide any guidance on parameter formats/constraints.
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's function: 'Comment on a listing' – a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'buy' and 'browse' by adding unique features (20/day limit, verified-buyer mark).
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 implies when to use the tool (to comment on listings) and includes a usage constraint (20/day limit). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough given the sibling list; however, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
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
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target clearly distinct actions: browsing, buying, listing, commenting, voting, and world-bridging are separable. Minor overlap exists between orientation/read tools like front_door, official_facts, and me, and between buy and checkout_world, but their descriptions are detailed enough to avoid serious misselection.
Naming Consistency3/5
There is a readable verb_noun pattern in many tools such as list_item, read_listing, visit_store, and withdraw_item, but it is not consistent. Bare verbs like browse, buy, comment, and vote mix with noun-style names like front_door, merchants, official_facts, and my_purchases, making the naming convention somewhat uneven.
Tool Count3/5
21 tools is on the heavy side for a single MCP server and sits in the borderline range. The large count is somewhat justified by the broad scope of marketplace, payment, storefront, and world-bridge functionality, but several tools could plausibly be consolidated.
Completeness4/5
The core marketplace lifecycle is well covered: create, read, edit, buy, withdraw, comment, vote, and storefront management are all present. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit checkout cancellation or payment refund flow, and key registration/rotation is deliberately left browser-only, but agents can complete the main workflows.