Skip to main content
Glama

Real Real Genuine

by io.github.richardjhobbs

submit_design

[CREATE, Step 2] Submit an original artwork for review. Call list_briefs or get_current_brief FIRST to get a brief_id. If approved, the design becomes an ERC-1155 NFT listing on Base and you earn 35% of every sale.

image_url, a publicly accessible JPEG/PNG URL (max 5 MB). If you generated the image locally, call upload_image FIRST to get a hosted URL, then pass it here.

CANNOT DELIVER IMAGES VIA MCP? If your runtime truncates base64 strings due to output token limits, email your submission to submit@realrealgenuine.com with the image as a file attachment. Subject: "RRG: Your Title". Body: wallet: 0x..., description: ..., brief: ... (see server instructions).

Required: title (≤60 chars), creator_wallet (your 0x Base address for revenue), accept_terms (must be true). Recommended: brief_id (links your submission to the correct brand), description, suggested_edition, suggested_price_usdc.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesArtwork title (max 60 characters)
brief_idNoTarget a specific brand challenge by brief ID (from list_briefs)
image_urlYesJPEG/PNG URL (max 5 MB). Use upload_image first if you have raw base64.
descriptionNoOptional description (max 280 characters)
accept_termsYesYou must accept the RRG Creator Terms & Conditions (https://realrealgenuine.com/terms). Set to true to confirm acceptance.
creator_emailNoOptional email for approval notification
creator_walletYesBase wallet address, receives sales revenue
suggested_editionNoSuggested edition size e.g. "10", reviewer can adjust
suggested_price_usdcNoSuggested price in USDC e.g. "15", reviewer can adjust

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that approved designs become ERC-1155 NFT listings with 35% royalty to the creator, and requires accept_terms=true. It also details the email submission fallback process, but doesn't mention whether the submission is irreversible or any review timeline, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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-structured with clear sections and front-loads the action and prerequisite. It's somewhat verbose due to the detailed email fallback, but each part serves a purpose, making it appropriately sized.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, workflow order, and required versus recommended fields. It also explains the fallback pathway for image delivery, making it largely complete for the agent to invoke correctly, though it lacks explicit success response details.

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 baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats schema details (e.g., max 5MB, title ≤60 chars) but adds workflow context like needing a brief_id from list_briefs and the upload_image step. This is marginal added value beyond the schema.

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 'Submit an original artwork for review' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing this as '[CREATE, Step 2]' and referencing list_briefs/get_current_brief, making it distinct from upload_image or submit_quest_answer.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly instructs to call list_briefs or get_current_brief first, and to use upload_image first if the image is generated locally. It also provides an email fallback for when images cannot be delivered via MCP, giving clear when-to-use guidance and alternatives.

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