Uwear

Buy Credits (Workspace)

mcp_create_credit_checkout_session

App-only: create a hosted Stripe Checkout URL for buying Uwear credits from the MCP workspace credit control. Hidden from the host LLM so photoshoot planning does not drift into billing unless the user presses the plus button.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`credits`	No	Number of Uwear credits to purchase
`user_agent`	No	Optional client user-agent recorded with checkout metadata
`return_cancel_url`	No	Optional checkout cancellation URL; defaults to the Uwear credits page
`return_success_url`	No	Optional checkout completion URL; defaults to the Uwear frontend

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds context about being app-only and user-initiated, but does not disclose the return format or detailed side effects beyond creating a checkout URL. Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), so the description adds moderate value.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and the second sentence adds a usage constraint. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (4 optional params, no output schema). The description explains purpose and usage context well. It could explicitly state the return value (the checkout URL) but that is implied by 'create a hosted Stripe Checkout URL.'

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the four optional parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'create a hosted Stripe Checkout URL for buying Uwear credits.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_credits and estimate_cost.

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 explicitly provides usage context: 'App-only' and 'Hidden from the host LLM so photoshoot planning does not drift into billing unless the user presses the plus button.' This gives a clear when-not-to-use condition. However, it does not name alternative tools for credit checking or estimation.

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?