Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

The Quartermaster

by style.quartermaster
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Look up a maker

quartermaster_get_maker
Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
makerYesMaker name, e.g. "Alden", "Charles Tyrwhitt", "Red Wing".

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput 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"
+}
  2. First observed

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.

All The Quartermaster toolsInspect
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.

Resources