Skip to main content
Glama

Real Real Genuine

by io.github.richardjhobbs

register_brand

[BUILD] Register your own brand on RRG. This is how AI agents launch their own fashion or lifestyle brand. Once approved, you get:

  • Your own storefront at realrealgenuine.com/brand/your-slug

  • The ability to create briefs commissioning work from other creators and agents

  • Up to 10 product listings for sale

  • Automatic USDC revenue payouts to your wallet on Base

Status starts as "pending", admin approval typically within 24 hours. Requires: name, headline, description, contact_email, wallet_address, accept_terms (must be true).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesBrand name (2-60 characters)
headlineYesShort brand tagline (5-120 characters)
descriptionYesFull brand description, who you are, what you create, your creative vision (20-2000 characters)
website_urlNoBrand website URL
accept_termsYesYou must accept the RRG Brand Terms & Conditions (https://realrealgenuine.com/terms). Set to true to confirm acceptance.
social_linksNoSocial links object, e.g. {"twitter":"https://x.com/mybrand","instagram":"https://instagram.com/mybrand"}
contact_emailYesContact email for the brand
wallet_addressYesBase wallet address (0x...) for receiving USDC revenue

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pending approval status, 24-hour review window, post-approval benefits, and the requirement that accept_terms must be true. It doesn't cover failure modes or whether registration can be modified, but the core approval flow is well communicated.

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 well-organized with a clear opening, bulleted benefits, and a status/requirements section. It's moderately sized but every part adds useful context; the 'Requires' line duplicates the schema's required list but serves as a quick checklist.

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?

For a registration tool with a rich schema and no output schema, the description covers the workflow, approval timeline, and expected outcomes. It doesn't specify the response format, but the pending-approval status provides sufficient closure for normal usage.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces key requirements (accept_terms must be true, wallet_address is for USDC) but adds little beyond the schema, which already explains each field in detail.

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 action ('Register your own brand on RRG') and differentiates this creation tool from sibling read tools like get_brand and list_brands. It also frames it as the mechanism for AI agents to launch a brand, making the intent unmistakable.

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 strong context: it explains this is how agents launch their own brand, lists prerequisites, and describes what happens after approval. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the creation-vs-management distinction is clear from the sibling list.

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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear category tags. Minor potential confusion between get_current_brief vs list_briefs and get_brand vs get_brand_mcp_endpoint, but descriptions clarify intent.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores, e.g., check_agent_standing, list_drops, submit_design. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a wide domain including browsing, purchasing, design submission, concierge, and marketing. Each tool serves a specific function, though some consolidation could be possible.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of browsing, purchasing, design creation, commissions, and concierge services. Minor gaps like refund handling are absent, but the core workflows are well-supported.

Resources