listBodiesBrowse Wild Wallet's public character catalog. Each row is a body an agent can propose to become. Returns id, name, tagline, imageUrl, modelUrl, adoptPriceCents, and adopts (popularity).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| section | No | Which catalog tier to return. Defaults to 'regular'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a public read-only browse and enumerates the exact return fields, including the popularity count. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it stops short of discussing pagination behavior, error cases, or section defaults.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and efficiently includes the return field list. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with no output schema, the description explains the row purpose and return fields. However, it omits details about the section enum and the limit parameter's role, which the schema only partially covers. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor but notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description makes no mention of the 'limit' or 'section' parameters. Schema coverage is only 50% (section has a description, limit does not), and the description does not compensate for the missing limit explanation, leaving the agent to guess at its meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Browse') and resource ('Wild Wallet's public character catalog'), then specifies that each row is a body an agent can propose to become. This goes beyond the name and title, making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like listItems.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context: browsing the character catalog to see bodies available for adoption. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with sibling tools like listItems, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' criterion for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool fulfills a unique role: greet tests payments, listBodies and listItems list different catalogs, negotiate handles agent spending, previewOutfit visualizes combinations, and requestMerge initiates the final action. No two tools overlap in their core purpose.
Most names follow a camelCase verb_noun pattern (listBodies, listItems, previewOutfit, requestMerge), but greet and negotiate are single verbs without a noun object. This is a minor deviation that doesn't create confusion.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose of browsing, previewing, and merging agent bodies. Each tool contributes a distinct capability without redundancy or bloat.
The core workflow is covered: browse bodies, check items, negotiate, preview, and request merge. Missing operations like checking merge status or cancelling a request are minor gaps that agents can work around, but they are not fatal.