PrintYourDuck Quote
Server Details
Find and submit local 3D print files for manual PrintYourDuck quote review.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: requirements retrieval, submission, and status checking. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can easily select the correct tool.
All tool names use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern. However, the first tool includes the full server name prefix ('printyourduck_quote_requirements') while the others use shorter forms ('quote_status', 'quote_request'), introducing a minor inconsistency.
Three tools cover the core workflow of a manual quote request system: requirements, submission, and status. This is a well-scoped set without unnecessary tools.
The tool surface covers the complete lifecycle for a manual quote request: understanding requirements, submitting a request, and checking its status. There are no obvious missing operations for this domain.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_printyourduck_quote_requirementsGet PrintYourDuck Quote RequirementsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Read public requirements for a PrintYourDuck manual custom 3D printing quote request. Use this before submit_quote_request to check accepted file types, material options, confirmations, restrictions, and the private-upload flow. Does not calculate instant pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| uploadFlow | Yes | |
| requestTypes | Yes | |
| restrictions | Yes | |
| marketRegions | Yes | |
| manualQuoteOnly | Yes | |
| maxFileSizeBytes | Yes | |
| acceptedFileTypes | Yes | |
| noPaymentAtUpload | Yes | |
| maxFilesPerRequest | Yes | |
| materialPreferences | Yes | |
| maxTotalFileSizeBytes | Yes | |
| requiredConfirmations | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as that it does not calculate instant pricing and covers public requirements. No contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence provides essential information without fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 no parameters, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it does not do, sufficiently for its context.
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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the tool reads public requirements, including the specific aspects listed, which is valuable for selection.
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 tool name and description clearly state it reads public requirements for a PrintYourDuck custom 3D printing quote request. The verb 'read' and resource 'requirements' are specific, and the description distinguishes from siblings by noting it is used before submit_quote_request.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool (before submit_quote_request) and what to check (accepted file types, material options, confirmations, restrictions, private-upload flow). It also clarifies what it does not do (calculate instant pricing), providing clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_quote_statusGet PrintYourDuck Quote StatusARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Look up public-safe quote status using the quote request ID and matching customer email. Alias intents: check quote status, check manual review status, check payment-link availability. Does not expose private file keys, payment URLs, or sensitive operational details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| quoteRequestId | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| found | Yes | |
| status | No | |
| message | No | |
| createdAt | No | |
| shippedAt | No | |
| updatedAt | No | |
| marketRegion | No | |
| paymentStatus | No | |
| quoteRequestId | No | |
| expectedQuoteTime | No | |
| trackingAvailable | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context by specifying the data is 'public-safe' and explicitly lists what it does NOT expose (private file keys, payment URLs, sensitive details), complementing annotations.
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?
Exactly two sentences: first covers purpose and inputs, second covers alias intents and exclusions. No fluff, efficient, and front-loaded.
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 lookup tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, aliases, and exclusions. Complete and self-contained.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, description partially compensates by naming the two parameters and explaining their role ('using the quote request ID and matching customer email'). However, it lacks details on constraints or formats beyond schema.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'look up' and the resource 'public-safe quote status' using quote request ID and email. Easily distinguishable from siblings: submit_quote_request and get_printyourduck_quote_requirements.
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?
Lists alias intents (check quote status, check manual review status, check payment-link availability) which guide when to use. Implicitly excludes sensitive data retrieval by stating what it does not expose. Could be more explicit about when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_quote_requestSubmit PrintYourDuck Quote RequestAInspect
Submit customer contact details and private uploaded file metadata for manual PrintYourDuck quote review. Alias intents: request a 3D print quote, send uploaded file for quote, submit manual quote request. Requires explicit confirmations and a stable submissionId for retries. No payment is collected and no instant price is returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| Yes | |||
| files | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| country | Yes | ||
| quantity | Yes | ||
| requestType | No | ||
| submissionId | Yes | ||
| desiredDeadline | No | ||
| rightsConfirmed | Yes | ||
| materialPreference | Yes | ||
| manualQuoteConfirmed | Yes | ||
| restrictedItemConfirmed | Yes | ||
| userSubmissionConfirmed | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | |
| error | No | |
| issues | No | |
| status | No | |
| message | Yes | |
| quoteRequestId | No | |
| expectedQuoteTime | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: confirmations needed, retry handling, no payment/instant price. No contradiction with annotations.
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 plus alias list, front-loaded with main purpose, no wasted words.
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?
Despite high complexity (16 params, many required), the description is too brief, omitting parameter details and error handling. Output schema may help but description should do more.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to explain individual parameters. Only general 'contact details and file metadata' is mentioned, insufficient for 16 parameters.
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 submits customer contact details and file metadata for manual quote review. It provides alias intents and distinguishes from sibling retrieval tools.
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 specifies required confirmations and stable submissionId for retries, and notes no payment/instant price. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!