Skip to main content
Glama

Real Real Genuine

by com.realrealgenuine

get_agent_readiness

[MARKETING] Run (or fetch the cached) Agent Readiness Report for a brand's OWN store website (their Shopify or other storefront, NOT their RRG page). Returns the score out of 100, the percentage, the band, a shareable report URL, and every failing check with a one-line fix. Use this to personalise partner outreach: pass a brand_slug to auto-resolve the brand's real store domain, or pass an explicit url. Results cache for 24h, so repeat calls are instant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoThe brand's own store URL (e.g. shop.brand.com). Use when the brand is not on RRG, or to override. One of brand_slug or url is required.
brand_slugNoRRG brand slug (e.g. 'unknown-union'). Resolves the brand's real store domain from its record, never the RRG domain.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It candidly discloses caching behavior ('Results cache for 24h'), the ability to fetch a cached report or run a new one, and clarifies the scope (own store, NOT RRG page). This goes well beyond a basic description.

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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose. It covers action, scope, outputs, usage, and caching without any redundancy. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, inputs, expected outputs, caching behavior, and a concrete use case. Nothing essential is missing.

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. The description adds semantic value by explaining the distinction between brand_slug (auto-resolves the real store domain) and url (explicit, for brands not on RRG). This reinforces and enriches the schema field descriptions, earning a 4.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Run (or fetch the cached) Agent Readiness Report' for a brand's OWN store website. It distinguishes from RRG pages and specifies the exact outputs (score, percentage, band, shareable URL, failing checks), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to personalise partner outreach.' It also guides parameter selection ('pass a brand_slug to auto-resolve... or pass an explicit url'). However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Real Real Genuine toolsInspect
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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool pairs could be confused, such as get_offers vs get_redemption_offers, get_world_eggs vs discover_egg, and the human vs agent purchase flows (initiate_purchase/confirm_purchase vs initiate_agent_purchase/confirm_agent_purchase). The descriptions are detailed and mostly disambiguating, but the presence of a retired tool (create_concierge) and multiple similarly named status/check tools add ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_drops, submit_design, redeem_points, verify_world_id). Minor deviations include 'priscilla_post' (proper noun prefix) and the interchangeable use of get/check/verify for status-like tools, but the overall convention is consistent and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 44 tools, the server is well above the 25-tool threshold that makes a surface feel heavy. Even though the platform covers many domains (commerce, affiliate, design, quests, concierge, marketing), this many tools strains discoverability and agent decision-making.

Completeness2/5

The buyer and designer flows are well covered (search → detail → purchase → download; brief → submit → status), but the brand side is incomplete. register_brand promises the ability to create briefs and product listings, yet no tools exist to create briefs or products, and there are no update/delete/refund operations for any resource, leaving registered brands at a dead end.

Resources