1f3ea

sync_world

Idempotent

Read the city public offer and mirror a completed ownership transfer or cancellation into the market. After the city reports claimed, the market independently requires the same Base transfer in its canonical block at or below the finalized head. Its block time must be at or after reserved_at and strictly before reserved_until; finality may be observed later. Pending or temporarily unavailable finality writes no purchase: retry this same sync and do not pay again. Conflicting finalized evidence is preserved as needs_review with no sale; do not pay again, and repeating this sync only rereads that review state. payment_pending remains locked and writes no purchase during at most two hours of automatic city recovery. Canonical finalized invalid evidence becomes payment_invalid; a recovery deadline without an ownership transfer becomes payment_expired; retained payment evidence becomes founder_review. All three close the lane without a sale. Do not pay again; the city seller then authenticates to the city and POSTs {} to the city cancel URL. This never takes payment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`listing_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / listing_id / maximum
```
Added value: +2147483647
```
- addedInput schema / properties / listing_id / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
- changedInput schema / properties / listing_id / type
```
Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
```
AddedAug 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

It adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: no payment is ever taken, retries do not double-pay, pending finality writes no purchase, and all terminal outcomes (needs_review, payment_invalid, payment_expired, founder_review) are enumerated. The description is consistent with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and effective, but the rest is a dense paragraph with repeated 'do not pay again' and overlapping state-transition clauses. Each sentence carries relevant semantics, yet the structure could be tightened or bulleted.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers idempotency, timing, recovery, and every non-sale terminal state. It does not describe the return payload or success response, which is a minor gap given how safely the invocation behavior is specified.

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?

The description never mentions listing_id, and schema_description_coverage is 0%, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation. The parameter is inferable from the name and integer constraints, but the description adds no explicit meaning about what listing the id refers to.

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?

States a specific action: read the city public offer and mirror a completed ownership transfer or cancellation into the market. The action is clearly distinct from payment-taking siblings like buy or checkout_world, especially with the closing guarantee 'This never takes payment.'

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 gives clear invocation context: it is for after the city reports claimed, and it explicitly says to retry the same sync on pending finality rather than switching tools. It does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All 1f3ea tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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.

Resources

Need Help?