Set the documents, print options and US mailing recipient on a job. Price fields are rejected: the server computes all amounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | No | ||
| options | No | ||
| recipient | No | US mailing address | |
| job_handle | Yes |
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?
The description discloses a notable behavioral trait: 'Price fields are rejected: the server computes all amounts.' This is valuable because it tells the agent that price-related inputs are not accepted and the server will handle pricing. However, with no annotations at all, the description does not clarify other important behaviors like whether the update replaces or merges existing documents/options, or whether the job must be in a draft state.
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 a single, dense sentence that conveys the core purpose and includes a critical constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.
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?
Given four parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain whether the update is additive or a full replacement, what 'print options' are valid, whether recipient is optional, or what the server response looks like. The single behavioral hint about pricing is helpful but leaves many operational questions unanswered.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It maps the three major parameter groups (files, options, recipient) to 'documents, print options and US mailing recipient', but it does not explain field-level semantics, such as how files are structured (e.g., pages required, size/color enums), what keys options may contain, or which recipient fields are required. This is a high-level gloss rather than useful parameter guidance.
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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'a job', and enumerates the specific attributes being modified: documents, print options, and US mailing recipient. It is distinct from the sibling tools by virtue of the update framing, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.
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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like hip_create_job or hip_quote. The phrase 'on a job' implies an existing job, but no prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions are given.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct by resource and action, such as create_job vs update_job or complete_payment vs create_checkout. However, hip_quote and hip_prepare_payment both return pricing information and could be confused at first glance; the descriptions do clarify their different purposes, but an explicit warning is needed to keep them apart.
All tools follow the same hip_ prefix with verb_noun snake_case naming, such as hip_create_job, hip_get_order, and hip_complete_payment. This makes the toolset predictable and easy to navigate.
Ten tools is well-scoped for a print-and-mail service. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow—job creation, document upload, quoting, payment, and order tracking—without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
The core lifecycle is well covered: create and update a job, upload documents, quote, pay via autonomous or checkout flows, check payment status, and retrieve order tracking. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit cancel/delete job or a pre-payment job status retrieval tool, but agents can likely work around these.