Uwear

Create Brief for Approval

propose_brief

Destructive

Create a Uwear BriefProposal from canonical generation commands. Every commands[].input is the MCP-safe GenerationIntent fields; commands and immutable plans are persisted without translation. Supply a concrete model_slug for generate, edit, upscale, and video. Use durable command.source IDs for uploaded files or generation results, and reference_attachments for additional references. For video, attach available full back or side garment assets that the camera may reveal when capacity permits; having the asset uploaded is not enough. If the response contains video_garment_view_not_attached, explain its exact assets, node, and capacity, then follow its remediation. Never mix reference_attachments with img_ref_urls or append recommendations beyond remaining capacity. Set execute_immediately=true only when the user explicitly asks to run now. Include creative_context for photoshoots and explain the art direction after proposing. For changes to a visible brief, call update_brief with the complete replacement command list. Webhook callback configuration is API-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`commands`	Yes	Canonical generation commands. Each command contains the MCP-safe GenerationIntent fields and a durable source reference. Write each input.prompt as a compact positive scene description (setting, lighting, mood, camera, pose — for video, motion and camera movement); without art_direction_id the prompt is the entire creative direction, so give it the full scene. The attached garment/avatar/reference images carry product appearance, so never pad prompts with restated garment construction details, product-fidelity warnings, or negative 'do not' instruction blocks; styling intent (fit, tuck, drape) is fine. For video commands, attach available full back or side garment assets that the camera may reveal through input.reference_attachments when capacity permits. Do not combine reference_attachments with img_ref_urls; uploaded garment assets are not attached automatically. Webhook callback configuration is API-only.
`creative_context`	No	Required for photoshoot proposals and brief rewrites. Summarize the shoot-level creative approach that guided garment combos, avatars, prompts, and pipeline steps. By default prefer one cohesive art direction across the photoshoot, e.g. 'urban summer editorial', 'standard grey e-commerce', or 'sporty studio catalog'. Per-look prompts may differ for garment details, pose, framing, or avatar, but should feel part of the same shoot unless the user explicitly asks for multiple art directions, split concepts, A/B routes, or varied campaign directions. The assistant should explain this art direction to the user after proposing the brief and ask if they want changes.
`execute_immediately`	No	Set true only when the user explicitly asks to prepare/create/generate/run the photoshoot without another review step. When true, Uwear persists the brief, confirms it, and executes it directly if credits and validation allow; otherwise it falls back to the editable BriefProposal.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true but do not explain the mutation semantics. The description ranks as 4, not 3, because it discloses a rich set of non-obvious behaviors beyond the annotations: the error remediation for video_garment_view_not_attached, the relationship between execute_immediately flag and user intent, the constraint not to mix reference_attachments with img_ref_urls, and the persistence of commands/plans without translation. These add real behavioral context absent from annotations. It loses a point because it does not explain what 'destructive' means for a propose operation (a proposal being created is technically a create, but annotations mark it destructive, likely because it overwrites a draft).

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 description is packed with many important constraints but is a single dense paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose but then floods the agent with multiple instructions in rapid succession. Sentences like the video asset rule, the remediation, and the mixing prohibition are all valuable but arranged without clear hierarchy or separation. It is appropriately sized given the complexity but would benefit from bulleting or bolding key constraints. Not under-specified, but poorly structured for the amount of content.

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 3 parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers the required source references, the creative_context requirement for photoshoots, the execute_immediately rule, the video-attachment edge case with its remediation, and routing to update_brief. It is incomplete only in that it does not describe what the returned BriefProposal looks like (no output schema exists), but the description says 'Create a Uwear BriefProposal' and the remediation hints the response contains a field, so the agent can infer. Given the nested complexity of GenerationIntent, it does not describe every prompt-writing nuance here, but the schema's rich per-field descriptions carry that burden.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema parameters: for commands it clarifies the 'MCP-safe GenerationIntent fields' and the need for durable source IDs; for creative_context it emphasizes explaining art direction after proposing and requiring it for photoshoots; for execute_immediately it states the condition 'only when the user explicitly asks to run now,' which is a strict constraint not fully explicit in the schema. This is above the baseline but not a 5 because the description does not walk through each field of the nested GenerationIntent in detail (though the schema already does that with rich descriptions).

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 ('Create a Uwear BriefProposal') and a concrete resource ('from canonical generation commands'). It distinguishes this from update_brief by naming it as the tool for changes to a visible brief. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the many sibling tools like propose_outfits or propose_montage, which are also proposal-creation tools, though their outputs differ.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Create a Uwear BriefProposal'), and provides clear exclusions: 'For changes to a visible brief, call update_brief with the complete replacement command list.' It also states that 'Webhook callback configuration is API-only,' telling the agent this tool cannot do that. It gives the key routing rule to the sibling update_brief, covering the primary alternative.

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?