Find source-checked US boutiques with plus-size bridal samples physically available to try on.
Average 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct try-on scenario: at-home programs versus in-store samples. The risk of confusion is low, though both are bridal-try-on discovery tools and require careful reading to distinguish.
Both tools use a consistent snake_case find_ prefix, but the second tool omits the 'try_on' term, creating minor structural inconsistency. Overall the naming pattern is recognizable and readable.
Two tools is at the thin end of the range; while the niche focus is tight, the index only has two modes of discovery. It feels slightly under-scoped for a server that might reasonably cover more try-on categories.
The pair covers at-home and plus-size in-store samples, but general in-store try-on and other search dimensions are absent. The domain is partially covered, and an agent cannot exhaust a full bridal try-on search without additional tools.
find_at_home_bridal_try_onFind At-Home Bridal Try-On ProgramsAList source-checked wedding-dress try-on programs for shoppers without a suitable local rack. Results distinguish low sample fees from refundable deposits, expose each published return-clock anchor and day count, and disclose whether a destination is commissionable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: results are source-checked, they distinguish low fees from refundable deposits, they expose return policies, and they disclose commissionability. This is genuinely useful transparency for an agent deciding how to interpret outputs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, dense, well-structured sentence. It leads with the core action and audience, then packs the key output distinctions without fluff. Every clause adds relevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the target use case, the evaluation criteria of results, and the important financial/return dimensions an agent should surface to shoppers. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is essentially empty, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on output semantics rather than parameter details, since no input parameters exist. It adds no irrelevant parameter guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('List'), resource ('source-checked wedding-dress try-on programs'), and audience ('shoppers without a suitable local rack'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling find_bridal_samples. It also enumerates what the results will expose (fees, deposits, return clock, commissionability), making the tool's scope explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: for shoppers lacking a suitable local rack. It does not explicitly mention find_bridal_samples as an alternative or state when not to use it, but the audience condition and the 'at-home' focus provide enough contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_bridal_samplesFind Plus-Size Bridal SamplesAFind source-checked US bridal boutiques where a requested plus-size wedding dress sample is published as physically available to try on. Results are not real-time; confirm before traveling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Boutique, city, or state search text | |
| size | No | US bridal sample size | |
| state | No | Two-letter US state code |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds crucial behavioral context: results are source-checked but not real-time, and physical availability is emphasized. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set proper expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first defines the core action, second provides an important caveat. No redundancy or irrelevant information. The description is well front-loaded and earns each sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (three optional params, output schema exists, annotations rich), the description covers all essential aspects: what it finds, source-checking, non-real-time nature, and physical availability. No gaps remain for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description adds limited extra meaning—tying 'plus-size' to the size parameter and 'US' to state—but does not significantly enhance what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool finds US bridal boutiques with physically available plus-size wedding dress samples. Verb 'find' and specific resource are explicit, and the non-real-time caveat adds clarity. No sibling tools exist to differentiate, but the purpose is precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides clear context: use to locate source-checked boutiques with available samples. The non-real-time warning and suggestion to confirm before traveling serve as usage guidance. No exclusions or alternatives are needed due to lack of siblings, but the guidance is helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Neutral cross-brand bra-size translation and a live in-stock bra catalog by size.
Search verified U.S. manufacturers with provenance, freshness, and live directory statistics.
Plan a wedding in chat: search vendors, get regional costs, build a checklist and budget.
Find 76,000+ curated healthcare service vendors across 25 categories and all 50 US states.
