SkinGrind

Browse CS2 cases

browse_cases

List Counter-Strike 2 cases, capsules and souvenir packages, or get one container with its contents plus its drop odds and expected opening value. Odds use the standard CS2 tier weights and are renormalised over the tiers actually present.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number.
`slug`	No	Container slug. When set, returns that container with its contents and opening odds instead of the list.
`sort`	No	List ordering: newest, oldest or name. For a single container the contents order: rarity, name, price_asc or price_desc.
`type`	No	Filter the list by container type.
`search`	No	Free-text container name search.
`per_page`	No	Results per page, 1 to 25.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses odds calculation behavior (renormalized tier weights), but does not cover error handling, authorization needs, or response structure beyond what is implied. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. Every phrase adds value (list vs. get, odds explanation). No redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, 6 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the dual modes and odds, but lacks details on response format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. It feels somewhat incomplete for a tool of this scope.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining how slug switches to single-container mode and how sort behaves differently for list vs. single container. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 tool lists CS2 containers or retrieves a single container with contents and odds, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browse_collections or search_cosmetics by focusing on containers and drop odds.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (listing vs. single container), but does not explicitly explain when to choose this over alternatives like browse_collections or search_cosmetics. No when-not or exclusions are provided.

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

All SkinGrind 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 tool targets a distinct aspect of CS2 cosmetics: browsing categories, searching, getting details, and ROI calculations. There is no overlap as browse/get/search verbs are clearly separated by resource type.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., browse_bargains, get_case_roi_ranking, search_skins), using underscores and clear action words.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the server covers the core functionality of browsing, searching, and analyzing CS2 skins and containers without being overly large or sparse.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers browsing, searching, detail retrieval, and ROI analysis for cases and armory. A minor gap is the lack of user account operations or direct trading, but the server's scope is well-defined.

Resources

Need Help?