Ada Diamonds

Search engagement ring settings

search_engagement_rings

Read-only

Search Ada Diamonds' engagement ring settings by center-stone shape, style, and setting price. Setting prices exclude the center diamond — pair with search_diamonds to quote a complete ring. MCP Apps-enabled: hosts that support MCP Apps render the results as an interactive card grid.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Free-text match on the setting name
`type`	No	Setting type, e.g. Solitaire, Halo, Three Stone
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return, 1 to 50 (default 10)
`shape`	No	Center-stone shape the setting must accommodate, e.g. Oval
`style`	No	Design style, e.g. Petite Four Prong, Trellis, Bezel
`max_price`	No	Maximum setting price in US dollars, excluding the center diamond
`min_price`	No	Minimum setting price in US dollars, excluding the center diamond

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	Which catalog the results come from
`items`	Yes	The matching entries, best match first
`query`	Yes	The filters that were applied (only the ones you sent)
`shown`	Yes	How many entries are in `items`
`total`	Yes	How many catalog entries matched before the limit
`browseUrl`	Yes	Web page listing the full catalog for this search

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: setting prices exclude the center diamond, and MCP Apps-enabled hosts render results as an interactive card grid. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states scope and filters, the second clarifies pricing semantics and the sibling pairing, and the third notes the host-dependent rendering. Information is front-loaded and no filler is present.

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 7-parameter optional-filter search tool with a full output schema and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It explains the critical pricing caveat, names the complementary tool, and covers the interactive rendering behavior without over-explaining structured fields.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all seven parameters. The description reinforces the domain meaning of shape/style/price filtering but adds little beyond the schema; the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search Ada Diamonds' engagement ring settings,' with explicit filter dimensions (shape, style, price). It also differentiates from the sibling search_diamonds by clarifying that this tool searches settings only and should be paired with search_diamonds for complete rings.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool for engagement ring settings and explicitly instructs to pair with search_diamonds when quoting a complete ring. It does not explicitly exclude other siblings like search_jewelry, but the context is clear enough for correct routing.

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

All Ada Diamonds 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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each search tool targets a distinct inventory category (loose diamonds, engagement ring settings, fine jewelry, knowledge base), and the non-search tools handle distinct actions, no two tools appear to do the same job. Potential overlap between engagement rings and jewelry is resolved by clear setting vs. finished-jewelry descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All eig tools follow a snake_case nouns pattern, with search_* used consistently for lookups and get_/read_request_create_ for other operations. Naming is predictable and uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well-scoped for ecommmerce/knowledge server: three product searche, knowledge-base search plus read, company info, consultation booking, checkout. Every tool ear its place and adds no unnecessary surface area.

Completeness5/5

The set covers the full customer journey: browsing diamonds setting, jewelry, reading guides, getting busines details, requesting consultation, and completing purchase via checkout. Potential gap like order tracking are outside the apparent scope.

Resources

Need Help?