Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
underindex-mcp

underindex-mcp

by ascanioUnderIndex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

List UnderIndex subcultures

list_subcultures

List every niche fashion subculture UnderIndex has a verified record for, with its slug, name and years. Free. Call this first to find the exact slug for get_subculture.

Instructions

List every niche fashion subculture UnderIndex has a verified record for, with its slug, name and years. Free. Call this first to find the exact slug for get_subculture.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_subcultures"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful traits: the data is limited to 'verified' records, the call is 'Free', and the returned fields are enumerated. It does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the result is ever truncated, which keeps it short of full behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with no filler: scope and return fields first, then a one-word cost note, then the routing instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple, no-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (slug, name, years), the data quality scope (verified records), and the follow-up step. 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.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or pagination inputs are required.

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 ('List every niche fashion subculture UnderIndex has a verified record for') and names exactly what each entry contains: slug, name and years. This is clearly separable from get_subculture, which returns a single record.

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 directive: 'Call this first to find the exact slug for get_subculture.' That both states when to use it and routes the agent to the correct sibling tool afterward, leaving nothing 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