One Grailed curated homepage collection's full listing set. id is the collection's numeric id, from grailed_collections' own collections[].id field. An unknown id returns a not-found error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds that unknown ids return a not-found error, a useful failure-mode detail, but doesn't cover pagination or return size for what is by nature a potentially large listing set.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: scope, parameter origin, and error behavior. Front-loaded with the resource definition.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The description covers the single parameter's origin and error mode, which is largely sufficient for a one-param read tool, though a note on result size or pagination would round it out.
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 0% and the single 'id' param has no schema description, so the description carries the burden by defining id as the collection's numeric id sourced from grailed_collections' collections[].id field. That's meaningful added meaning beyond the bare integer 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?
The description states a specific resource ('a Grailed curated homepage collection's full listing set') with a clear noun phrase, distinguishing it from sibling grailed_listing and grailed_collections. It doesn't have a strong verb, but the resource scope is clear enough to distinguish it.
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 explains that the id comes from grailed_collections' collections[].id, which gives useful origin context for using this tool after that sibling. However, it doesn't specify when this is preferable to grailed_search or grailed_similar_listings, leaving the selection logic only partially implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
