Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

modaoperandi_designers

List Moda Operandi designers by women's or men's department, returning names, slugs, and item counts. Use each slug with modaoperandi-search to browse that designer's items.

Instructions

List Moda Operandi designers. Lists the designers currently available in one Moda Operandi department, chosen with the required gender (women or men). Each designer has its name, slug and item count, and each slug can be passed as designer to modaoperandi-search. The response also carries the count of designers.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
genderYesDepartment

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.5

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return payload (name, slug, item count per designer) plus a total `count`, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not discuss pagination or limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by scope, output shape, and integration hint. The first two sentences partially repeat ('List ... designers' / 'Lists the designers ...'), a minor redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by describing returned fields and the designer-slug linkage. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits pagination and any notion of a fixed vs. variable result size.

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 `gender` parameter already documents its enum and 'Department' meaning. The description restates the same enum values and the department-selection semantics, adding little beyond the structured field, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Moda Operandi designers') and scopes it to one department selected by gender. It also explicitly relates the output slug to the `modaoperandi-search` sibling, so an agent can place this tool in the workflow without opening other schemas.

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?

The description establishes clear usage context: enumerate designers for a department, then feed each slug as the `designer` argument to `modaoperandi-search`. It does not name when to prefer `modaoperandi_categories` instead, but the read-then-search workflow is unambiguous.

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