within

Similar items at other boutiques

similar_pieces

Read-onlyIdempotent

Finds comparable in-stock pieces across independent luxury boutiques when you like an item but want another size, lower price, or different shop; identify the original by URL or boutique and ID.

Instructions

Items like one item: the same look, the same department, across every boutique, in stock now. Use this when someone likes an item but wants alternatives, a lower price, another size, or another shop. Name the item by url, or by boutique_domain and id. The url is a shopwithin.co product page link; the tool reads within's own catalog, documented at https://shopwithin.co/agents.

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": "similar_pieces"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No
`url`	No	A shopwithin.co piece link.
`limit`	No	Default 8.
`boutique_domain`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`anchor`	Yes
`pieces`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description still adds real context: results are restricted to in-stock items, drawn from across all boutiques, and sourced from within's own catalog (with a docs pointer), which tells the agent the result boundary and data provenance.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the usage trigger and the input format. The trailing documentation pointer is mildly promotional but still serves a purpose for a closed catalog; no sentence is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Crucially, the description supplies the one thing the schema cannot: despite zero required parameters, at least one identifier (url, or boutique_domain plus id) is clearly implied, which prevents a parameterless call.

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 50%, with url and limit described but id and boutique_domain bare. The description compensates by explaining the either/or identification pattern ('by url, or by boutique_domain and id') and clarifying that url is a shopwithin.co product page link, but it says nothing about limit or the bounds on id, leaving the compensation partial.

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 states a specific operation on a specific resource: 'Items like one item ... the same look, the same department, across every boutique, in stock now.' The scope qualifiers (cross-boutique, in-stock) separate it from single-boutique or generic search siblings such as boutique_shelf or search_pieces, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use this when someone likes an item but wants alternatives, a lower price, another size, or another shop' gives a concrete trigger condition tied to user intent. It does not state when NOT to use it or name a competing tool (e.g. compare_pieces, wear_with), so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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