Preview a listing
preview_toolRead-onlyIdempotent
Draft a listing for a website without submitting it. Requires a token.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
VibeHacker
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful auth requirement ('Requires a token') and reinforces that no submission occurs. It does not describe output behavior, but this is partially mitigated by the aligned 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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the token requirement is a necessary invocation detail that earns its place.
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?
Given the single required parameter and rich annotations, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves gaps: it does not state what the tool returns, how the token is provided, or clarify that 'draft' means generating a preview rather than persisting anything.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the `url` parameter or its relationship to the preview action. The schema only provides type and format, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's role, but it does not.
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 states a specific verb ('draft') and resource ('listing'), and the phrase 'without submitting it' directly distinguishes this from submit_tool. However, 'draft' is slightly ambiguous relative to the title 'Preview a listing', and the actual preview behavior is only implied rather than explicit.
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 phrase 'without submitting it' implies this tool is for pre-submission previews and implicitly contrasts with submit_tool, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusion conditions.
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
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool maps to a distinct resource/action: exact retrieval, category listing, search, submission drafting, submitting, own submissions, and voting. preview_tool and submit_tool are clearly separated by whether the listing is filed for review.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_tool, search_tools, submit_tool). my_submissions breaks the pattern by using a possessive phrase instead of a verb.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a directory-and-voting service: three discovery operations, three submission-related operations, and one engagement operation. There is no apparent bloat or redundancy.
Completeness4/5
Core discovery, submission, and upvote workflows are covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit category browsing or update/delete for submissions, but agents can likely work around them via search and submission status.