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 | Collection id, from grailed-collections' own collections[].id field |
| 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.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"Collection id, from grailed-collections' own collections[].id field"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact: an unknown id returns a not-found error, which helps the agent interpret failures. It doesn't elaborate on pagination of a large listing set, keeping it just short of 5.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before covering input provenance and error behavior. No filler; every clause carries information.
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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The description supplies purpose, input provenance, and error behavior, which is sufficient for a single-parameter lookup 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 single id parameter is documented in both schema and description. The description adds only that the id is 'numeric' and that unknown ids error out, which is marginal beyond the schema's parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the semantics.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: it retrieves 'one Grailed curated homepage collection's full listing set.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling grailed_collections (which enumerates collections) and grailed_listing (a single item). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
It points the agent to grailed_collections as the source of a valid id, which implies the two-step workflow, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (grailed_search, grailed_listing) or when-not-to-use. Usage is therefore implied rather than stated.
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.