Assess My Hair | Powered by Rich Mom Recommends

Assess Hair Needs (Cosmetic)

assess_hair_needs

Given a person’s hair type, current hair condition, goals, and routine, return COSMETIC hair-care approaches and product categories to consider. Cosmetic and educational only — it does NOT diagnose, treat, or advise on any medical or scalp condition, does NOT prescribe medication, and routes anything concerning to a qualified professional. No emails, purchases, or other consequential actions are triggered.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`goals`	No	Cosmetic goals, e.g. ["length retention", "more moisture", "reduce breakage", "define curls"]. A single string is also accepted.
`routine`	No	Current routine details (all optional): washFrequency, deepConditioning, heatUse, protectiveStyles, productCount.
`hairType`	No	Hair type / texture, e.g. "4c coily", "type 3 curly", "fine wavy", "color-treated".
`condition`	No	Current hair conditions/concerns, e.g. ["dry", "breakage", "frizz", "heat-damaged"]. A single string is also accepted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is cosmetic and educational only, does not diagnose or prescribe, routes concerning matters to professionals, and triggers no emails, purchases, or other consequential actions.

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 compact two-sentence definition with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the safety and scope limitations are stated efficiently in the second sentence.

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?

The description is complete for this tool's complexity: it summarizes all inputs, states the output type, discloses limitations, and provides safety routing. Required parameters are 0, there is no output schema, and no siblings exist, so nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description mentions hair type, condition, goals, and routine at a high level, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('return') and resource ('COSMETIC hair-care approaches and product categories to consider'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from medical or diagnostic tools by defining the cosmetic/educational boundary.

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 clear context: it is for cosmetic hair-care guidance based on hair type, condition, goals, and routine. It also provides exclusions by stating it does NOT diagnose, treat, or advise on medical/scalp conditions and routes concerning cases to a professional, though it does not name explicit alternative tools.

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

All Assess My Hair | Powered by Rich Mom Recommends 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no ambiguity or overlap in tool selection; assess_hair_needs is the only possible choice. Its description clearly defines what it does and what it does not do.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name follows the conventional verb_noun snake_case pattern (assess_hair_needs), which is clear and predictable. There are no conflicting naming conventions to confuse an agent.

Tool Count3/5

The server is a single-purpose assessment tool, so one tool is not necessarily wrong, but the surface feels thin for a hair-care domain. Supporting tools such as clarifying hair type or expanding product-category guidance would round it out.

Completeness4/5

The tool fully covers the core stated purpose of assessing hair needs and returning cosmetic approaches and product categories, so there are no major dead ends in the main workflow. Minor gaps exist only around follow-up refinement or more specific product guidance, which the tool explicitly disclaims.

Resources

Need Help?