A
licenseA
qualityA
maintenanceThe premier fashion & apparel Model Context Protocol server. AI bounding box outfit deconstruction, 100% in-stock occasion looks, live size stock, and 1-click checkout.
10
166 npm
MIT
The Quartermaster
Server Details
Independent menswear concierge: what to wear to any occasion, and is this piece worth the price.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership by verifying the domain or GitHub account it belongs to. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Uptime
- 100.0% over 37 days
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
- URL
- ChatGPT
- –
- Claude
- –
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Scored across 5 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action: judging a single item (check_piece), looking up a brand (get_maker), browsing brands (list_makers), building an outfit (plan_outfit), and eliciting inputs via a guided flow (start_fitting). The start_fitting/plan_outfit boundary is explicitly documented as input-then-execute, so an agent can route reliably.
Naming Consistency5/5
All names use a single quartermaster_ prefix followed by a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_piece, get_maker, list_makers, plan_outfit, start_fitting). No mixed casing or style drift.
Tool Count5/5
Five tools is well-scoped for a menswear advisory server, with each tool earning its place across the browse-lookup-judge-plan workflow. No redundant or filler tools.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers brand research, item evaluation, and outfit planning with a sensible guided entry point, giving an end-to-end advisory loop. Live pricing, stock, size, and ordering are intentionally out of scope, but that leaves no dead ends within the stated ledger-based domain.
Available Tools
5 toolsquartermaster_check_pieceIs this worth it?ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Judge one piece of menswear before someone pays for it. Use when someone asks whether a piece of men's clothing or a pair of men's shoes is worth it ("is this worth it?", "is this a good deal?", "should I buy this?"), or pastes a men's clothing or shoe listing with a price, including Nordstrom Rack, outlet, eBay and Grailed finds. Give the maker, the category and the price, plus where it is sold and, if known, the compare-at price, fiber and build from the listing. Returns a verdict (Worth it, Worth it if the tag checks out, Only at a lower price, Skip it, Pay less, or Not enough to judge when the ledger does not grade the maker for that category and the listing gives no fiber or build that the ledger can score), the maker's grade, the fair price band for that kind of seller, what to check on the tag, cost per wear, and graded makers in the same category (same grade or better when the maker is graded). Limits: menswear only; prices are US dollars from the QuarterMaster ledger of 53 makers, checked September 2026, not live store prices; no stock, size or delivery checks; no orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build | No | Shoe or jacket construction, if the listing says. | |
| fiber | No | Fiber content from the listing, e.g. "100% wool" or "55% polyester". | |
| maker | No | Brand or maker name as written on the listing, e.g. "Allen Edmonds", "Levi's", "J.Crew". | |
| price | Yes | Price being asked, in US dollars. | |
| where | No | full (brand site or department store), offprice (Nordstrom Rack, TJ Maxx, Marshalls), outlet (brand outlet or factory store), grey (marketplace seller), resale (eBay, Grailed, consignment). Default full. | |
| category | Yes | One of: shoes (Leather shoes), boots (Boots), sneakers (Sneakers), tailoring (Suits, jackets, trousers), shirts (Shirts), knitwear (Knitwear), outerwear (Outerwear), watches (Watches), denim (Jeans), tees (Tees and polos), chore (Chore jackets and overshirts), chinos (Chinos and cotton trousers). | |
| compare_at | No | The "compare at" or original price on the tag, if shown. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| grade | Yes | |
| maker | Yes | |
| price | Yes | |
| where | Yes | |
| dossier | Yes | |
| reasons | Yes | |
| verdict | Yes | |
| category | Yes | |
| fair_band | Yes | |
| in_ledger | Yes | |
| better_value | Yes | |
| cost_per_wear | Yes | |
| lifespan_years | Yes | |
| estimated_wears | Yes | |
| check_on_the_tag | Yes | |
| maker_not_found_suggestions | Yes |
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and closed-world traits, yet the description adds substantially more: the exact verdict vocabulary, the ledger's limitations (53 makers, snapshot checked September 2026, not live store prices), the US-dollar assumption, and an explicit 'no orders / no stock checks' boundary. This is rich behavioral context beyond the structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Purpose and triggers are front-loaded, which is good, but the middle is a single sprawling sentence with a long parenthetical enumerating every verdict string, including an awkward nested clause. Since an output schema already exists, that return-value enumeration is largely redundant and weighs the description down.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a seven-parameter, closed-world scoring tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: trigger conditions, required inputs, verdict semantics, data-freshness limits, and explicit exclusions. Nothing material is left to inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by framing which inputs drive the verdict — it explains that fiber and build are what the ledger scores, and that a missing maker grade plus no fiber/build yields the 'Not enough to judge' outcome. That causal link is not in 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Judge one piece of menswear before someone pays for it') with unambiguous scope, and it is instantly distinguishable from sibling tools like quartermaster_get_maker, quartermaster_list_makers and quartermaster_plan_outfit. An agent can route to it without opening any schema.
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 gives explicit trigger conditions with quoted user phrasings ('is this worth it?', 'should I buy this?') and names the input scenarios (pasted listings from Nordstrom Rack, outlet, eBay, Grailed). The menswear-only limit and the 'no stock, size or delivery checks' exclusion further bound when the tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
quartermaster_get_makerLook up a makerARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Look up one maker in the QuarterMaster ledger: grade S to D and why, how it is built, where it is made, how its off-price stock behaves (mainline or made for outlets) and how to tell, full-price ranges, and what to check before buying. Use when someone asks whether a menswear brand is any good or still good, e.g. "Is Allen Edmonds still good?" or "Are Charles Tyrwhitt shirts worth it?". Accepts loose spellings. Limits: menswear only; prices are US dollars from the QuarterMaster ledger of 53 makers, checked September 2026, not live store prices; no stock, size or delivery checks; no orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maker | Yes | Maker name, e.g. "Alden", "Charles Tyrwhitt", "Red Wing". |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (which already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety), the description discloses the data source and size (quartermaster ledger of 53 makers), freshness (checked September 2026, not live store prices), fuzzy matching ("accepts loose spellings"), and hard limits (menswear only, US dollars, no stock/size/delivery, no orders). These are substantive behavioral facts an agent cannot get from structured fields.
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?
Well front-loaded: purpose, then usage, then limits, with the constraint block clearly demarcated by "Limits:". The opening sentence is a dense run-on listing every return field, some of which is arguably restated by the output schema, so it is slightly longer than strictly needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers scope, data vintage, currency, fuzzy-match tolerance, and explicit non-capabilities (no stock, size, delivery, or orders), which is everything needed to avoid a misuse. With an output schema present, the return-value enumeration is a bonus rather than a gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents "maker" with examples and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by noting it "accepts loose spellings," telling the agent it need not resolve exact brand names before calling.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Look up one maker in the QuarterMaster ledger") and enumerates exactly what the caller gets back: grade S to D and why, construction, origin, off-price stock behavior, price ranges, buying checks. "One maker" implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_makers, so an agent can route without opening the schema.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger condition ("Use when someone asks whether a menswear brand is any good or still good") with two concrete utterance examples. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. list_makers for browsing) or stating when-not-to-use, so it is clear context without explicit exclusion routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
quartermaster_list_makersList graded makersARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List menswear makers graded in the QuarterMaster ledger, best first, optionally filtered by category, minimum grade, and how their off-price stock behaves. Use for menswear questions like "who makes good boots", "best jeans that last" or "which shirt brands are worth it". Limits: menswear only; prices are US dollars from the QuarterMaster ledger of 53 makers, checked September 2026, not live store prices; no stock, size or delivery checks; no orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | One of: shoes (Leather shoes), boots (Boots), sneakers (Sneakers), tailoring (Suits, jackets, trousers), shirts (Shirts), knitwear (Knitwear), outerwear (Outerwear), watches (Watches), denim (Jeans), tees (Tees and polos), chore (Chore jackets and overshirts), chinos (Chinos and cotton trousers). | |
| min_grade | No | ||
| off_price | No | mainline: off-price stock is the real line; made-for-outlet: a cheaper line under the same name; rare: seldom discounted. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | |
| makers | Yes |
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: results are ordered best-first, the data is a static snapshot (ledger of 53 makers, checked September 2026, not live store prices), and it explicitly does no stock/size/delivery checks. The data-freshness caveat is not derivable from the annotations.
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?
Front-loads purpose, then intent examples, then a Limits block, so each sentence has a job. It is dense but not padded; the three-part structure is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
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 need no explanation, and the description covers scope (menswear), data provenance and freshness, ordering, and the tasks it deliberately excludes. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 67%, and the description names the three filter axes (category, minimum grade, off-price stock behavior) but adds little syntax or detail beyond the schema. min_grade has no schema description, so the description's 'minimum grade' is a marginal contribution; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (menswear makers graded in the QuarterMaster ledger), plus ordering (best first) and optional filters. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like quartermaster_get_maker or quartermaster_check_piece without opening any schema.
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?
Provides concrete example questions ('who makes good boots', 'best jeans that last') that anchor the tool to real queries, and the Limits section states when not to use it (no stock, size, delivery, orders). It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling to route to, which keeps it just below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
quartermaster_plan_outfitPlan an outfitARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Prescribe a complete men's outfit for an occasion within a budget. Each piece gets the best-graded maker that fits the money at a ledger starting price (full price or Nordstrom Rack), a second choice, and what to check at the fitting, plus cloth, cut and tag advice. If nothing graded fits the money for a piece, that piece comes back with no maker. If nothing fits at all, the result gives the lowest budget that fills every graded piece. Makers come only from the QuarterMaster ledger. Use after the fitting questions, or straight away when someone gives the occasion and the money for a man's outfit ("wedding in October, $800, what do I get?"). Limits: menswear only; prices are US dollars from the QuarterMaster ledger of 53 makers, checked September 2026, not live store prices; no stock, size or delivery checks; no orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cut | No | Jacket or suit cut, if tailoring is involved. | |
| room | Yes | The occasion. | |
| cloth | No | Jacket or suit cloth, if tailoring is involved. | |
| budget | Yes | Total to spend on the outfit, in US dollars. | |
| impression | No | How they want to come across: quiet (quiet and correct, the default), sharper (a notch above the room), relaxed (at ease). | |
| already_own | No | Pieces they already own for this occasion; the plan builds around them. | |
| time_of_day | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| budget | Yes | |
| method | Yes | |
| pieces | Yes | |
| placed | Yes | |
| ask_next | Yes | |
| occasion | Yes | |
| hour_note | Yes | |
| impression | Yes | |
| suit_marks | Yes | |
| already_own | Yes | |
| full_ledger | Yes | |
| spend_order | Yes | |
| time_of_day | Yes | |
| cloth_and_cut | Yes | |
| before_you_pay | Yes |
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare read-only, idempotent, non-open-world) by disclosing the selection algorithm, the fallback for an unfillable piece, the fallback budget when nothing fits, and the data provenance ('53 makers, checked September 2026, not live store prices'). The limits section clarifies freshness and absence of stock/order behavior, which an agent must know before promising results.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one and each following sentence carries distinct payload (algorithm, fallbacks, provenance, usage, limits). The prose is dense and occasionally run-on with stylized phrasing ('the money', 'the room'), which costs a little readability but no sentence is filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a read-only planner: triggers, exclusions, data provenance, fallback outcomes, and result shape are all covered, and an output schema exists so return fields needn't be enumerated. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly or set user expectations is missing.
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 86% and five of seven parameters carry enums with inline descriptions, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only loosely maps 'the occasion' and 'the money' to room and budget, and mentioning 'cloth, cut' does not add syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Prescribe a complete men's outfit for an occasion within a budget') and distinguishes itself from siblings by placement ('Use after the fitting questions') and scope ('Makers come only from the QuarterMaster ledger'). An agent can tell this apart from quartermaster_check_piece, quartermaster_get_maker and quartermaster_start_fitting without opening a schema.
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?
Gives explicit trigger conditions ('after the fitting questions, or straight away when someone gives the occasion and the money') plus a concrete example utterance, and an explicit exclusion list (menswear only, no stock/size/delivery checks, no orders). It never names which sibling to use instead for adjacent needs (checking a single piece, looking up a maker), so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
quartermaster_start_fittingStart a fittingARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Start a guided menswear fitting with QuarterMaster. Use when someone asks what a man should wear or buy for an occasion: "what should I wear to my friend's wedding", a work dinner, a first date, a rainy weekend away, coffee with friends, or "I have nothing to wear". Returns the tailor's questions in order, the occasions it dresses for, and the full kit each impression calls for, so the person can compare. The answers are the inputs to quartermaster_plan_outfit. Limits: menswear only; prices are US dollars from the QuarterMaster ledger of 53 makers, checked September 2026, not live store prices; no stock, size or delivery checks; no orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room | No | Optional. The occasion, if already known. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | |
| rooms | Yes | |
| questions | Yes | |
| how_to_run_it | Yes |
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real context beyond them: prices come from a static ledger of 53 makers checked September 2026 and are not live store prices, and there are no stock, size, delivery or ordering capabilities. The 'returns the tailor's questions...' sentence partly restates what the output schema already provides.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose then usage, then limits, so an agent gets the essentials immediately. The long list of example utterances overlaps with the enum values in the schema and could be trimmed without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, triggering situations, workflow hand-off to quartermaster_plan_outfit, domain scope, data provenance and explicit capability exclusions, and an output schema exists for return details. An agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'room' parameter is fully documented with its enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's occasion examples loosely mirror the enum values but add no format or selection guidance beyond 'Optional. The occasion, if already known.'
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Start a guided menswear fitting with QuarterMaster') and makes the domain boundary (menswear styling, not shopping) clear, which separates it from quartermaster_list_makers, quartermaster_get_maker and quartermaster_check_piece. The reference to quartermaster_plan_outfit pins its place in the workflow.
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?
Explicitly states when to use it ('Use when someone asks what a man should wear or buy for an occasion') with concrete trigger utterances, and names the downstream tool whose inputs these answers become. It also states when not to rely on it (no stock, size or delivery checks; no orders).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
- Changed
quartermaster_check_piece1 field changed- added
Output schema / properties / verdict / enumAdded value: +[ + "Worth it", + "Worth it if the tag checks out", + "Only at a lower price", + "Skip it", + "Pay less", + "Not enough to judge" +]
5 tool updates
- Changed
quartermaster_check_piece1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "better_value": { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "dossier": { + "type": "string" + }, + "grade": { + "enum": [ + "S", + "A", + "B", + "C", + "D" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "maker": { + "type": "string" + }, + "usual_high": { + "type": "number" + }, + "usual_low": { + "type": "number" + }, + "where": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "maker", + "grade", + "usual_low", + "usual_high", + "where", + "dossier" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "category": { + "type": "string" + }, + "check_on_the_tag": { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "cost_per_wear": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "number" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "dossier": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "estimated_wears": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "number" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "fair_band": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "high": { + "type": "number" + }, + "low": { + "type": "number" + } + }, + "required": [ + "low", + "high" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "grade": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "enum": [ + "S", + "A", + "B", + "C", + "D" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "in_ledger": { + "type": "boolean" + }, + "lifespan_years": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "number" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "maker": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "maker_not_found_suggestions": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "price": { + "type": "number" + }, + "reasons": { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "verdict": { + "type": "string" + }, + "where": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "verdict", + "maker", + "in_ledger", + "maker_not_found_suggestions", + "grade", + "category", + "price", + "where", + "fair_band", + "reasons", + "check_on_the_tag", + "cost_per_wear", + "estimated_wears", + "lifespan_years", + "better_value", + "dossier" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
quartermaster_get_maker1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "build": { + "type": "string" + }, + "categories": { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "check_before_you_buy": { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "dossier": { + "type": "string" + }, + "found": { + "const": true + }, + "full_price": { + "additionalProperties": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "high": { + "type": "number" + }, + "low": { + "type": "number" + } + }, + "required": [ + "low", + "high" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "object" + }, + "grade": { + "enum": [ + "S", + "A", + "B", + "C", + "D" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "id": { + "type": "string" + }, + "made": { + "type": "string" + }, + "maker": { + "type": "string" + }, + "off_price": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "how_to_tell": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "note": { + "type": "string" + }, + "stock": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "stock", + "note", + "how_to_tell" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "why_this_grade": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "found", + "maker", + "id", + "grade", + "why_this_grade", + "categories", + "full_price", + "build", + "made", + "off_price", + "check_before_you_buy", + "dossier" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "found": { + "const": false + }, + "query": { + "type": "string" + }, + "suggestions": { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + } + }, + "required": [ + "found", + "query", + "suggestions" + ], + "type": "object" + } + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
quartermaster_list_makers1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "count": { + "minimum": 0, + "type": "integer" + }, + "makers": { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "categories": { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "dossier": { + "type": "string" + }, + "full_price": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "high": { + "type": "number" + }, + "low": { + "type": "number" + } + }, + "required": [ + "low", + "high" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "grade": { + "enum": [ + "S", + "A", + "B", + "C", + "D" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "id": { + "type": "string" + }, + "maker": { + "type": "string" + }, + "off_price_stock": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "maker", + "id", + "grade", + "categories", + "full_price", + "off_price_stock", + "dossier" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + } + }, + "required": [ + "count", + "makers" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
quartermaster_plan_outfit1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "already_own": { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "ask_next": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "before_you_pay": { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "check": { + "type": "string" + }, + "maker": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "maker", + "check" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "budget": { + "type": "number" + }, + "cloth_and_cut": { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "full_ledger": { + "type": "string" + }, + "hour_note": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "impression": { + "type": "string" + }, + "method": { + "type": "string" + }, + "occasion": { + "type": "string" + }, + "pieces": { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "at_the_fitting": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "budget": { + "type": "number" + }, + "image": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "makers": { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "caution": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "dossier": { + "type": "string" + }, + "from_price": { + "type": "number" + }, + "grade": { + "enum": [ + "S", + "A", + "B", + "C", + "D" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "maker": { + "type": "string" + }, + "maker_id": { + "type": "string" + }, + "shop": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "where": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "maker", + "maker_id", + "grade", + "from_price", + "where", + "caution", + "dossier", + "shop" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "note": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "pick": { + "type": "string" + }, + "piece": { + "type": "string" + }, + "slot": { + "type": "string" + }, + "why": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "piece", + "slot", + "pick", + "why", + "budget", + "image", + "makers", + "note", + "at_the_fitting" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "placed": { + "type": "number" + }, + "spend_order": { + "type": "string" + }, + "suit_marks": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "check": { + "type": "string" + }, + "mark": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "mark", + "check" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + }, + "time_of_day": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ] + } + }, + "required": [ + "occasion", + "time_of_day", + "impression", + "budget", + "placed", + "spend_order", + "already_own", + "pieces", + "cloth_and_cut", + "hour_note", + "suit_marks", + "before_you_pay", + "ask_next", + "method", + "full_ledger" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
quartermaster_start_fitting1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "host": { + "type": "string" + }, + "how_to_run_it": { + "type": "string" + }, + "questions": { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "ask": { + "type": "string" + }, + "id": { + "type": "string" + }, + "note": { + "type": "string" + }, + "only_if": { + "type": "string" + }, + "options": { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "id": { + "type": "string" + }, + "title": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "id", + "title" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "suggestions": { + "items": { + "type": "number" + }, + "type": "array" + } + }, + "required": [ + "id", + "ask" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "rooms": { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "id": { + "type": "string" + }, + "impressions": { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "id": { + "type": "string" + }, + "kit": { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "title": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "id", + "title", + "kit" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "note": { + "type": "string" + }, + "photo": { + "type": "string" + }, + "pieces_you_might_own": { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "id": { + "type": "string" + }, + "label": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "id", + "label" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "title": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "id", + "title", + "note", + "photo", + "impressions", + "pieces_you_might_own" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + } + }, + "required": [ + "host", + "how_to_run_it", + "rooms", + "questions" + ], + "type": "object" +}
5 tool updates
- First observed
quartermaster_check_piece - First observed
quartermaster_get_maker - First observed
quartermaster_list_makers - First observed
quartermaster_plan_outfit - First observed
quartermaster_start_fitting
Related MCP Connectors
An independent yes-or-no style verdict, with a short reason, on a men's clothing item or outfit.
Fashion and gift concierge: size guide, AI try-on previews, dress search, gift baskets, scarves.
Search and explore taste-led finds in clothing, audio, designed objects and music.
Dress codes explained, outfit formulas by occasion and weather, and clothing colour combinations.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to deconstruct outfit photos into clothing pieces, discover 100% in-stock occasion looks, verify live size and fabric availability, and generate direct one-click checkout links.166 npm1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAsk your AI what to wear: weather-aware outfit suggestions for any city and occasion, today or tomorrow. Live weather via OpenWeather, layering advice on big temperature swings, curated styling formulas for 7 occasions. Hosted at https://outfitmaker.ai/mcp (Streamable HTTP, no auth). Tools: what_to_wear_today, suggest_outfit, about_outfitmaker.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables clients to look up dress-code meanings, generate five-piece outfit formulas for an occasion and weather, explore tested clothing colour combinations, and find relevant style guides through a free read-only MCP endpoint.MIT
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.