Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Uwear

by ai.uwear
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Set Garment Side

set_garment_side
Idempotent

Use this when a garment's photo shows its back but Uwear has it as the front (or the other way round): you saw the photo in this chat, or the user says so. side back makes the photo the garment's back, so back shots run from it; front undoes that. When the board holds the same garment twice, front and back photos as two garments, pass garment_id (the front) with side back and from_garment_id (the back): one garment with both photos. Call it yourself and continue (confirm_brief if the user asked to run): never ask the user to relabel a photo on the board. The board's brief is saved again with its new quote. Deletes nothing.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sideYeswhat its photo shows: back makes it the garment's back photo
board_idYesThe open Shoot Board's board_id, from Open Shoot Board or your context.
garment_idYesthe garment (clothing id on the board, or worn by a look of its brief)
from_garment_idNoside back only: a board garment whose photo is garment_id's back (the same garment added twice). Its photo becomes garment_id's back; it leaves the board, kept in the library

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / from_garment_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "side back only: a board garment whose photo is garment_id's back (the same garment added twice). Its photo becomes garment_id's back; it leaves the board, kept in the library",
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), and the description adds real context beyond them: the board's brief is re-saved with a new quote, nothing is deleted, and the source garment leaves the board but stays in the library. It stops short of describing permissions or what the response contains, but the side-effect profile is well disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The trigger condition is front-loaded in the opening clause, and every sentence carries operational content. It is dense and slightly run-on, and the parenthetical '(confirm_brief if the user asked to run)' is terse to the point of ambiguity, but there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: when to trigger it, how to handle the duplicate-garment case, what gets re-saved (quote), what is not destroyed, and that the agent should proceed without asking the user.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value: it explains the front/back pair pattern where garment_id (front) plus from_garment_id (back) merge two board entries into one garment with both photos. That is usage-level meaning the schema doesn't convey.

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?

Names the exact condition and the effect: a garment whose photo shows its back but is registered as front gets relabeled, with 'side back' making the photo the garment's back and 'front' undoing it. That is specific enough to distinguish it from board-editing siblings like modify_shoot_board or mcp_reclassify_board_item.

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?

Gives explicit triggers ('you saw the photo in this chat, or the user says so'), the duplicate-garment workflow with from_garment_id, and an explicit prohibition ('never ask the user to relabel a photo on the board'). It even states the follow-up behavior (call it yourself and continue, confirm_brief if the user asked to run).

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

All Uwear toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources