makeup.land
Server Details
MCP server for makeup.land — an Israeli professional cosmetics retailer. Catalog tools (list_products with cross-lingual semantic search and ΔE-ranked shade matching that returns shade_match: {hex, delta_e} per product, plus validate_gift_card) work anonymously. Customer-data tools (list_brands, get_customer, get_cart, list_orders, list_payment_links, get_customer_best_deals) need a bearer token issued via shop@makeup.land.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.8/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
Each tool targets a unique domain aspect: cart, customer, deals, brands, orders, payment links, products, and gift cards. No functional overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_* for single items, list_* for collections, validate_gift_card). All snake_case, no mixing.
8 tools is well-scoped for a query-focused loyalty/retail server, covering the essential data endpoints without bloat.
Core query operations are present, but missing singular get_product and get_order by ID would improve completeness. No mutation tools, but that may be intentional.
Available Tools
8 toolsget_cartFetch a customer's cartAInspect
Return the customer's most-recently-updated cart with per-line and total reward projection. Bearer + phone required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | Yes | E.164 phone selecting the customer whose cart to return. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the most-recently-updated cart and requires Bearer authentication, but does not clarify if the operation is read-only or if there are side effects. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no fluff. Every part serves a purpose: stating the action and the requirements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return value (cart with reward projection) and requirements. It could mention error handling or edge cases, but overall is complete for a simple fetch tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already explains the phone parameter. The description does not add any new semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the customer's most-recently-updated cart with reward projection, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_customer or list_orders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Bearer + phone required' which implies authentication and required parameter, but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_customer). Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_customerLookup customer by phoneAInspect
Return tags, ℳ-credit balance, M Club tier for the customer with the given E.164 phone. Bearer required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | Yes | E.164 phone number, e.g. +972501234567. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses auth requirement ('Bearer required') and return fields, but omits details like behavior for non-existent numbers, rate limits, or idempotency. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence plus a short note. Front-loaded with action and output. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description lists all return fields (tags, balance, tier). For a simple read-by-phone tool, this is complete. No missing context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with phone parameter fully defined via pattern and example. Description adds no extra meaning beyond 'E.164 phone' which mirrors schema. Baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'customer... with the given E.164 phone', listing specific output fields (tags, credit, tier). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_customer_best_deals (deals) and list_orders (orders).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description says 'Bearer required' (auth context) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_customer_best_deals. Usage is implied but lacks explicit when-not or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_customer_best_dealsPersonalised best deals for a customerAInspect
Top deal projections based on the customer's tags + M Club tier. Bearer + phone required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max deals to return. | |
| phone | Yes | E.164 phone selecting the customer. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements ('Bearer + phone required'), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not describe whether the operation is read-only (likely), idempotent, or if there are side effects or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded: purpose and requirements are stated immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does and what's required. It omits details about how tags and tier influence deals, but the overall guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand its basic function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 adds 'Bearer' as an authentication requirement not present in the schema, but does not elaborate on the existing parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Top deal projections based on the customer's tags + M Club tier' with the title 'Personalised best deals for a customer'. The verb 'get' and resource 'customer_best_deals' make the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_customer or list_products.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions prerequisites ('Bearer + phone required') but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context based on the tool name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_brandsList all brandsAInspect
Return every brand with product counts and slugs. Bearer required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool returns brands with product counts and slugs, and requires Bearer authentication. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and return data, then adds the authentication note. Every sentence is useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the returned fields (product counts and slugs) and authentication. However, it omits potential details like sorting, pagination, or limits, which could affect agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline is 4 due to high schema coverage and zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns every brand with product counts and slugs. The verb 'Return' and resource 'brands' are specific, and the tool name 'list_brands' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cart, get_customer, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only mentions 'Bearer required' for authentication. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it specify when not to use it. The context is clear for listing all brands, but lacks explicit usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_ordersList a customer's ordersAInspect
Recent orders with 6-axis status (order / payment / fulfillment / delivery / return / review). Bearer + phone required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-indexed page number. | |
| limit | No | Page size. | |
| phone | Yes | E.164 phone selecting the customer. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. States 'Bearer + phone required' (authentication). Mentions 'recent' but undefined. No mention of side effects, ordering, or pagination behavior. Moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded: purpose then auth requirement. Zero waste. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations. Lacks details on result set, pagination behavior, definition of 'recent', and response format. Adequate but incomplete for a listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. Description adds no extra param meaning beyond auth context. Baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear statement: 'List a customer's orders' plus 'Recent orders with 6-axis status'. Distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., list_products) by specifying order-specific status axes. Very specific verb+resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage: for listing orders. 'Bearer + phone required' gives prerequisite. No explicit when-not or alternative tool recommendations. Sibling tools not compared.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_payment_linksList pending payment linksCInspect
Pending payment_requests on the customer's unpaid orders. Bearer + phone required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | Yes | E.164 phone selecting the customer. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation and mentions auth/phone requirements, but omits details like pagination, return format, or what happens when no pending links exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two phrases), which is concise, but the first phrase is a noun fragment ('Pending payment_requests on the customer's unpaid orders.') that could be restructured for better readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should hint at what the tool returns (e.g., list of links, URLs, status). It only mentions 'payment_requests on unpaid orders', leaving the agent to guess the output structure, which is insufficient for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'phone' with a pattern and description. The description adds 'Bearer + phone required', reinforcing the requirement but offering no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The title 'List pending payment links' clearly states the action, and the description 'Pending payment_requests on the customer's unpaid orders' indicates the subject. Although the description lacks a direct verb, the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like 'list_orders' or 'get_cart'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes 'Bearer + phone required' but provides no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No explicit guidance on prerequisites or scenarios is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_productsList / search productsAInspect
Browse the catalog with tag, brand, near_hex (ΔE shade match), hue_family, and sort filters. Bearer becomes required when passing phone (rewards projection).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Natural-language query. Cross-lingual semantic search — `lipstick`, `שפתון`, `lápiz labial` each return Hebrew-tagged lipsticks (the sets may differ across languages but are semantically equivalent). Prefer this over `tag` for any category lookup that isn't already in exact Hebrew. | |
| tag | No | Filter by an EXACT tag string. Tags are Hebrew (e.g. שפתון, ביוטי, עיניים, שפתיים). English category names rarely match — use `q` instead for natural-language queries. | |
| page | No | 1-indexed page number. | |
| sort | No | Sort order. Default: relevance. | |
| brand | No | Filter by brand slug or name. | |
| limit | No | Page size, default 20. | |
| phone | No | E.164 phone for per-customer rewards projection. REQUIRES bearer auth. Omit for anonymous catalog browse. | |
| near_hex | No | Target hex color for ΔE-ranked shade matching. Examples: '#C2185B', 'E8D4B8'. Each returned product carries a `shade_match: {hex, delta_e}` field with the closest variant swatch and its perceptual distance. | |
| hue_family | No | Post-filter on hue family. Must be paired with another filter. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that near_hex returns shade_match field and phone requires auth. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default sort, or rate limits, which would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with main purpose, then a critical usage note. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, description should cover return structure. It mentions shade_match field but not other fields or pagination info. Schema documents all parameters, but response format is missing. Adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds extra meaning for 'phone' (auth requirement) and 'near_hex' (shade_match field), plus clarifies cross-lingual semantic search for 'q'. Provides value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Browse the catalog with... filters', with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_brands and get_cart by focusing on product listing and filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly mentions that bearer auth is required when passing 'phone'. Provides clear context for anonymous vs. authenticated browsing. Does not explicitly exclude when to use alternatives, but siblings are distinct enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_gift_cardValidate a gift card codeAInspect
Check a gift card's remaining balance using its code. Public endpoint — no bearer required (gated on knowledge of the code).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Gift card code (full string as printed on the card). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the public nature and gated access, but does not mention read-only behavior, error handling, or response structure, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences that front-load the main purpose with zero waste. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and public nature. However, it omits error states, return value format, and any limitations, making it minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 'code' parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Check a gift card's remaining balance using its code,' specifying a distinct verb and resource. No other sibling tool deals with gift cards, so it is well-differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly describes the tool as a public endpoint with no authentication required, providing context on when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-not conditions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!