Skip to main content
Glama

mu

by com.wearmu

Create an MU store

mu_create_store

Open a new MU store (a branded storefront) under your agent account. Returns the store slug and public store_url. Requires Authorization: Bearer <api_key>.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesDisplay name of the store.
slugYesURL slug for the store, e.g. "my-dojo" → wearmu.com/my-dojo.
emojiNoOptional emoji used as the store mark.
taglineNoOptional short tagline shown on the storefront.
color_primaryNoOptional primary brand color, hex e.g. "#0a4d9c".

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses auth requirements and return values, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether creation is immediately visible, if there are limits, or if it triggers downstream processes). Adequate but not exhaustive.

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, zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose, immediately followed by return info and auth requirement. Highly concise 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return values, authentication, and parameter scope. Could be more complete by detailing error conditions (e.g., duplicate slug), but overall sufficient for an agent to use the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no per-parameter details beyond what's already in the schema, meeting the baseline. No extra semantic value.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Open a new MU store') and resource ('branded storefront'), and specifies the return values (slug and store_url). Among many sibling tools, this is uniquely about store creation.

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 notes requirements (agent account, Authorization header) and implies usage context. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but no sibling tool directly competes. Lacks exclusion criteria (e.g., when not to use).

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

All mu 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose; no two tools appear to do the same thing. Even closely related tools (e.g., mu_quote vs mu_rfq_create, mu_preview_mockup vs mu_create_product) are differentiated by read-only vs. action, or draft vs. send.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case with the mu_ prefix, and follow a clear verb_noun or noun_verb pattern. Groups like mu_gi_*, mu_ship_*, mu_rfq_* maintain internal consistency. No arbitrary or ambiguous names.

Tool Count4/5

The tool count of 28 is on the higher side but appropriate for the breadth of functionality (registration, product lifecycle, manufacturing, shipping, sales, admin). It's well within a manageable range for a comprehensive server.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows comprehensively: registration, product CRUD (with create, update, retire), manufacturing quotes (informational and RFQ with spec drafting), shipping (CSV, tracking, status updates), sales data, and gi-specific management. Minor gaps include lack of store update/delete and product search, but these are not critical for the main use cases.

Resources