Skip to main content
Glama

hypsh fashion stylist

by com.hypsh
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Put together an outfit

generate_outfit
Read-only

Use this when the user wants a complete outfit. Primary chat path is prompt-based generation; widget actions may call this with product_id for item-based outfit generation. Pass gender when you know who the outfit is for. Do not use this for single-item product search. The result's content is a plain-text summary of the outfit (each piece with brand and price); structuredContent.outfit holds the same pieces with product ids and shop links.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
imageNo
genderNoWho the clothes are for: 'female' or 'male'. Set it whenever the user says or the conversation suggests it ('for my boyfriend', 'women's', a gender they mentioned earlier, the kind of piece they ask for). Only ask the user if there is no hint at all and the answer would clearly differ by gender. Omit for unisex requests.
promptNo
countryNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of the country the shopper is in (e.g. 'DE', 'US'), if known. Used to show shops that deliver there.
max_budgetNoTotal outfit budget in EUR. Pass the user's budget when they give one, and a high one (e.g. 3000) when they ask for designer or luxury pieces. Omitted, the outfit is kept to about EUR 700.
product_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / country
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of the country the shopper is in (e.g. 'DE', 'US'), if known. Used to show shops that deliver there."
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the one thing annotations can't: the return shape, distinguishing the plain-text 'content' summary from 'structuredContent.outfit' with product ids and shop links. It says nothing about latency or failure modes, but with a safe read operation that is a minor omission.

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?

Roughly four sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and the exclusion before the invocation paths and return format. Every sentence carries information, though the final sentence about content vs. structuredContent is dense enough to be slightly harder to parse than the rest.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the return structure, and it covers the two calling contexts. Given six optional parameters it would benefit from at least a hint about what 'image' expects, which is the remaining hole.

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 coverage is 50%. The description adds real meaning for product_id (only populated on the widget path for item-based generation) and reinforces gender ('pass when you know who the outfit is for'), which the schema already details. However, 'image' and 'prompt' have no documentation in either the schema or the description, so half the parameters still require guesswork.

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 ('Put together an outfit' / 'complete outfit') and immediately scopes it against the alternative: 'Do not use this for single-item product search', which maps to the sibling semantic_search. An agent can decide between generating an outfit and doing item search without inspecting either schema.

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?

It names both invocation paths explicitly ('Primary chat path is prompt-based generation; widget actions may call this with product_id for item-based outfit generation') and gives a clear exclusion. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and which parameter selects which path are all stated rather than inferred.

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

All hypsh fashion stylist 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