Skip to main content
Glama
ApparelHub-AI

apparelhub-mcp

Official
by ApparelHub-AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

find_garments

Read-only

Search every fulfillment provider on your account at once for garments matching a decoration capability, so you can confirm a design can be produced before saying it can't.

Instructions

Search EVERY fulfillment provider on the account at once for garments matching a capability. USE THIS BEFORE TELLING A USER AN ITEM CANNOT BE BUILT. A capability limit is almost always scoped to one provider, not to the category of garment: one provider carrying only embroidered headwear says nothing about another's printed caps. browse_catalog answers 'what does THIS provider carry'; this answers 'what on this ACCOUNT can take this design'. Provider scope defaults to every provider available — pass providers only to deliberately narrow it. Returns a compact ranked shortlist (confirmed capability first), plus providers_searched so you can state your coverage honestly rather than implying you checked everything. An empty result means nothing matched THESE filters on THESE providers; it is not proof the garment does not exist, and the warnings say so. Read-only.

[#e5ad81]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoDefault 20.
verifyNoConfirm low-confidence matches with a per-garment lookup. Defaults on when filtering by capability. Bounded, so a very broad search may leave some unverified.
keywordNoExtra substring match on name/brand.
categoryNoGarment kind, e.g. "hat", "t-shirt", "mug". Matched against product names across each provider's whole catalog, including the words providers actually use ("hat" also finds cap / beanie / snapback / trucker).
providersNoProvider NAMES to restrict to. OMIT to search every provider on the account — that is the default and the recommended usage.
workspaceNo
include_unknownNoKeep garments whose decoration method the provider never published. Default true: unclassified is not the same as unsuitable, and excluding them hides real options.
accepts_photorealNotrue for photographic / gradient-heavy / fine-detail artwork; false to find garments you can embroider. This is the filter that answers "can this design go on this thing".
decoration_methodNoAny match qualifies. "print" means a print process the provider does not name more precisely.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.15.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the trailing 'Read-only.' adds little. However the description discloses substantive behavior beyond annotations: a ranked shortlist with confirmed capability first, the `providers_searched` field for honest coverage reporting, and the crucial semantics that an empty result is not proof of nonexistence (echoed in warnings).

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the imperative and scope come first, then the sibling contrast, then defaults and return semantics. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though a stray trailing artifact and the redundant 'Read-only.' sentence are minor waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract (ranked shortlist, providers_searched) and the empty-result interpretation, which is exactly what an agent needs for a 9-parameter open-world search tool. Nothing material is missing.

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 89%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the default provider scope and when to override it, the role of accepts_photoreal as the 'can this design go on this thing' filter, and the rationale for include_unknown's default. This goes beyond restating 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: searches EVERY fulfillment provider on the account for garments matching a capability. Explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling browse_catalog ('what does THIS provider carry' vs 'what on this ACCOUNT can take this design'), so the agent can route without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit imperative when-to-use ('USE THIS BEFORE TELLING A USER AN ITEM CANNOT BE BUILT'), the reasoning behind it (capability limits are provider-scoped, not category-scoped), the named alternative browse_catalog, and the condition for narrowing scope via `providers`. Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools