Rendreal

Submit the page mapping

prepress_submit_mapping

Destructive

Apply the proposed mapping to the order — the print suppliers' record.

Call only after the customer's approval has been recorded: answer the APPROVE_MAPPING confirmation with prepress_confirm first, unless the mapping card already did (the item is approved). This is the step that commits. Requires a PROPOSED mapping, approved.

Returns a job_id. This waits for page management to finish, so the result usually reports configured: true and no follow-up is needed. If it reports configured: false the mapping is applied and still processing — call prepress_check_configuration later, and never re-submit.

Job errors: OrderNotMappableError (the order has moved past awaiting artwork — mapping is no longer possible), MappingNotApprovedError (the customer hasn't approved yet — answer the APPROVE_MAPPING confirmation with prepress_confirm), MappingNotProposedError, MappingRejectedError (a file changed since the proposal — re-run prepress_map_pages), or UnrepresentableMappingError, or ItemHasDesignError (the item holds an attached design, and the design is what prints).

A submitted mapping is what prints for the item, so the design and candidates made for it are released: the next item can be designed.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "order_id": "<order_id>",
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "prepress_submit_mapping"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_id`	Yes
`order_id`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag a destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only write; the description adds the crucial context that this is the step that commits, that it blocks until page management finishes, and that on submission the design and its candidates are released for the next item. It also enumerates the concrete job errors and the recovery action for each (re-run prepress_map_pages, re-approve, etc.), which goes well beyond structured data.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the gating condition, and most sentences carry new operational information. The error sentence is a run-on with a repeated 'or ... or' construction that slightly hurts scanability, and the approval caveat appears twice.

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 committing, destructive, blocking tool, it covers prerequisites, side effects, the wait behavior, the configured flag semantics, and a full error taxonomy with remediation. With an output schema present, no return-value documentation is owed, and the extra explanation of configured: true/false is helpful rather than redundant.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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

All three parameters (session_id, order_id, item_id) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry their meaning, yet it never mentions session_id and gives no format or sourcing guidance for the IDs. Only passing prose references to 'the order' and 'the item' hint at what two of the parameters identify.

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 (apply) and object (the proposed mapping on the order), and clarifies the order is the print supplier's record. It explicitly contrasts with the proposing step (prepress_map_pages) and the approval step (prepress_confirm), so an agent can distinguish it from its siblings without opening schemas.

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 explicit preconditions ('call only after the customer's approval has been recorded', requires a PROPOSED mapping) and names the exact alternative when the precondition fails (answer APPROVE_MAPPING with prepress_confirm). It also states the when-not case: if the result reports configured: false, call prepress_check_configuration later and never re-submit.

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

All Rendreal tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?