Have It Printed

Set documents and recipient

hip_update_job

Idempotent

Set the documents, print options and US mailing recipient on a job. Price fields are rejected: the server computes all amounts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`files`	No
`options`	No
`product`	No	how the job is mailed. tracked_document (the default): printed and mailed flat in a rigid mailer with a free tracking number. basic_letter: up to 5 pages, one copy of each document, folded into a standard envelope and mailed First-Class, with no tracking. certified_letter: the same letter sent by Certified Mail, with a tracking number. hip_get_service_info has the prices.
`recipient`	No	US mailing address
`job_handle`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / product

Added value: +{
+  "description": "how the job is mailed. tracked_document (the default): printed and mailed flat in a rigid mailer with a free tracking number. basic_letter: up to 5 pages, one copy of each document, folded into a standard envelope and mailed First-Class, with no tracking. certified_letter: the same letter sent by Certified Mail, with a tracking number. hip_get_service_info has the prices.",
+  "enum": [
+    "tracked_document",
+    "basic_letter",
+    "certified_letter"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 5, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / files / items / properties / size / enum
```
Previous value: -[
-  "8.5x11",
-  "8x10",
-  "11x17"
-]New value: +[
+  "8.5x11"
+]
```
First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, and the description's 'Set' wording is consistent with idempotentHint=true. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral rule beyond the annotations: price fields are rejected because the server computes all amounts. However, it does not say whether a second call replaces or merges documents, nor what state the job must be in.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its targets, followed by the one non-obvious constraint. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a nested-object mutation with no output schema and only 40% parameter coverage, the description covers the shape of the call but not the operational context: replacement vs. merge behavior, required job state, and what a successful response confirms are all absent.

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 only 40%, so the description has to compensate and partly does by naming documents, print options, and the recipient, and by flagging that price fields are invalid input. It still leaves the free-form 'options' object unexplained and says nothing about job_handle semantics or how the files array relates to existing documents.

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?

States a specific verb ('Set') and enumerates the resources being set: documents, print options, and US mailing recipient on a job. It clearly implies a mutation of an existing job rather than creation, which separates it from hip_create_job, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. the job must already exist and be in an editable state), and no routing to alternatives such as hip_create_job or hip_get_service_info. The only implicit signal is the required job_handle, which the agent must infer means an existing job.

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

All Have It Printed 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?