List character looks
get_character_looksRead-only
List a character's looks.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| character_id | Yes | Character id. |
Squall Studio
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a read operation, and the description adds no behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or side effects. It merely restates the tool's name.
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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description does not clarify what a 'look' is or what the returned data contains. The minimal phrasing leaves important context unstated, though the tool is simple.
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 100% (the only parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning to 'character_id' beyond the schema's minimal 'Character id.'
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 verb 'List' and resource 'character's looks' clearly state the tool's purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_character' which fetches character details, and no other sibling covers looks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, fallbacks, or related tools, leaving the agent without routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between get_episode_shots and list_episode_segments, and get_episode_editor vs get_episode could be confused. Overall, the generate/get/list/update families are reasonably distinguishable.
Naming Consistency4/5
The verb_noun pattern is consistently applied across generate_, get_, list_, and update_ tools. Minor deviations like get_episode_editor (which returns a tree rather than an editor) and get_asset_library (rather than list_assets) prevent a perfect score.
Tool Count2/5
With exactly 25 tools, this exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+ in the calibration. While the domain is complex, the count feels heavy, especially with many near-duplicate get/list variants.
Completeness2/5
The tool surface is read- and generation-heavy but lacks update operations for characters, episodes, and projects, and has no delete operations at all. This creates notable gaps in lifecycle management, though the existing read/generate coverage is substantial.