within

Outfit ideas

outfit_ideas

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find outfit ideas for events, seasons, or styling a designer by querying within and returning up to five looks with in-stock items, prices, and shop links.

Instructions

Outfit ideas within has already put together, for a question or an occasion in plain words: its edits ("Christmas outfits", "What to Wear to the Ballet"), its outfit pages ("Guidi outfits", "Winter outfits for women") and its looks, each a whole outfit. Up to five come back, each with its name, one line on what it is, its shopwithin.co address and the items in it that are in stock at independent luxury boutiques, with price and link. Use this when someone asks for outfit ideas, what to wear to an event or in a season, how to style a kind of item or a designer, or for Christmas outfits, winter outfits, a date night outfit or streetwear outfits. It returns only what is on within and gives no advice of its own.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "outfit_ideas"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	The question or the occasion in plain words: 'christmas outfits', 'what to wear to the ballet', 'gym outfit men', 'guidi boots outfit'.
`department`	No	Only outfits for women or only for men. Outfits made for anyone stay in.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`hub_url`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`department`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds substantive behavior: a cap of five results, per-result composition, that items are filtered to in-stock inventory at independent luxury boutiques, and that it will not contribute original advice. It does not discuss ranking or what happens when nothing matches.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The content is front-loaded, but the opening clause 'Outfit ideas within has already put together' is grammatically tangled and slows comprehension of a simple retrieval tool. The example lists are duplicated across sentences ('Christmas outfits' and 'winter outfits' appear both as content types and as usage triggers), which is padding a fairly compact description.

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?

A two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations and an output schema needs little more than this, and the description covers scope, source restriction and result shape. The only real gap is the unaddressed department parameter, since results are described for women in the examples but the filter's effect is left to the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `query` and `department` are already documented with examples and an enum, establishing the baseline of 3. The prose reinforces only the 'plain words question or occasion' framing and never explains the department filter or its 'outfits made for anyone stay in' behavior, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 names the resource precisely — editorial outfit ideas ('its edits', 'its outfit pages', 'its looks, each a whole outfit') — and what each result contains (name, one-line summary, shopwithin.co address, in-stock items with price and link). It also draws a clear boundary with advisory tools via 'returns only what is on within and gives no advice of its own.' It stops short of naming a specific sibling (e.g. wear_with or trending_now), so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 second sentence enumerates trigger conditions in concrete terms: outfit ideas, what to wear to an event or season, styling a kind of item or a designer, plus occasion keywords like Christmas, winter, date night and streetwear. There is no explicit when-not clause or named alternative for overlapping requests such as styling a specific piece, which is presumably wear_with's territory.

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