Uwear

List Garments

list_garments

Read-onlyIdempotent

List user's garments with structured filters or query for hybrid name/SKU/metadata/image-attribute search.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number for pagination
`sort`	No	Sort order: 'field:direction', e.g. 'created_at:desc', 'clothing_item_name:asc'. Default: created_at:desc
`limit`	No	Number of items per page
`query`	No	Hybrid search across garment names, SKUs, metadata, and visual attributes.
`tag_ids`	No	Filter to garments with any of these tags
`category`	No	Filter to garments in any of these canonical categories
`end_date`	No	Filter: created on or before this date (ISO format)
`start_date`	No	Filter: created on or after this date (ISO format, e.g. '2025-06-01')
`clothing_item_ids`	No	Filter to specific garment IDs
`include_image_url`	No	Set true when the garment image itself is needed for visual display or reuse.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by distinguishing structured filtering from hybrid name/SKU/metadata/image-attribute search, which is not obvious from the annotations alone. No contradiction exists.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and every clause contributes meaningful scope or mode information. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only listing tool with 10 fully described optional parameters and no required inputs, the description covers core intent and query behavior well. It does not describe the output shape, but the list semantics and schema defaults make invocation predictable enough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with rich descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'hybrid name/SKU/metadata/image-attribute search' largely paraphrases the query parameter's existing description and adds little new parameter-level meaning.

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 states the specific verb 'List', the resource 'user's garments', and the two operating modes: structured filters and hybrid query across name/SKU/metadata/image-attribute. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_models/list_outfits and from get_garment.

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 makes clear that this tool is for listing a user's own garments and explains the two call styles: structured filters or a hybrid query. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls just 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 Uwear 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

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources and have detailed descriptions, but several closely related families exist: create_credit_checkout_session vs mcp_create_credit_checkout_session, the propose_brief/confirm_brief/update_brief lifecycle, and the many avatar/upload entry points. An agent must read long caveats carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tool names follow a predictable snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, propose_*). The mcp_* prefix group and varied creation verbs (create/upload/save/add/generate) are minor deviations, though mcp_create_credit_checkout_session duplicating create_credit_checkout_session adds some confusion.

Tool Count1/5

With 67 tools, this is an extreme mismatch by the rubric's own 50+ threshold, far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. Many tools are narrow lifecycle steps such as two-phase local uploads, app-only montage internals, and multiple ArtDirection authoring variants, making the agent-facing surface very heavy.

Completeness3/5

The core generation, brief, montage, and QA workflows are covered thoroughly with polling and result retrieval. However, notable lifecycle gaps exist: outfits, locations, avatars, and tags mostly have create/list/get but no update or delete, and delete_template is the only delete tool in the entire set.

Resources

Need Help?