Skip to main content
Glama

Real Real Genuine

by com.realrealgenuine

list_briefs

[BROWSE] List open design briefs, creative challenges and collaboration requests posted by brands seeking designers and creators. These are NOT products for sale. Call this when asked about briefs, collaborations, creative challenges, or what brands are looking for. Returns brief title, brand name, description, and brief ID. Use a brief ID with submit_design to respond. To see products for sale, use list_drops instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brand_slugNoOptional brand slug to filter briefs by a specific brand

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields (title, brand name, description, brief ID), clarifies these are NOT products, and notes the BROWSE nature. It does not mention pagination or authentication, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 description is a bit lengthy (six sentences) but every sentence adds value: purpose, exclusion, usage triggers, return fields, chaining, and alternative. It is front-loaded with [BROWSE] and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is comprehensive: it states what is listed, when to use, what is returned, and how to proceed. It lacks pagination/ordering details, but these are not critical for this tool.

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?

The only parameter (brand_slug) has a clear description in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics. Per calibration, high schema coverage yields a baseline 3.

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 identifies the tool's action (list) and resource (open design briefs, creative challenges, collaboration requests). It distinguishes from products for sale and from the sibling list_drops, giving it a specific purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to call the tool ('when asked about briefs, collaborations, creative challenges') and provides a direct alternative ('use list_drops instead' for products). It also establishes a workflow by suggesting using the returned brief ID with submit_design.

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