Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

gymshark_product_recommendations

Retrieve related or complementary Gymshark product recommendations for a product handle, with a limit up to 20, to help shoppers find matching items.

Instructions

List Gymshark product recommendations. Returns recommended products for one Gymshark (https://row.gymshark.com) product handle. The storefront URL is fixed server-side.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum products, defaults to 10 and supports up to 20
handleYesProduct handle
intentNoRecommendation intent. Allowed values: related, complementary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / intent / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "related",
+  "complementary"
+]
  2. Addedv1.16.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side and that the lookup is scoped to one handle, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination/limit behavior, or error handling.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, with the key scope in the first two sentences. It is slightly repetitive in restating that it lists/returns recommendations, but there is no wasted exposition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential input scope and fixed URL. It still leaves gaps around what the recommendation results look like, how limit affects output, and any failure conditions for invalid handles.

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%, so the schema already documents handle, limit, and intent. The description reinforces that the handle is for a single product and the storefront is fixed, but it adds no details beyond the schema for limit or the related/complementary intent enum.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: it lists/returns Gymshark product recommendations for one product handle. It clearly implies the per-product scope, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as gymshark_product or gymshark_products.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The per-handle scope implies when to use it: when recommendations are needed for a known Gymshark product handle. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not compare it with alternatives like gymshark_product or gymshark_products.

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