Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Platemark

by com.rowhousesoftware
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Make a quote, receipt, certificate or letter PDF

render_document

Make a PDF of another kind: quote (estimate with valid-until date), receipt (marked Paid), certificate (completion or award, with signatures) or letter (offer letters, notices). Pass the type and its fields; quotes and receipts take the same fields as render_invoice. Returns a PDF link. Costs 2 credits.

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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "render_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYes
fieldsYesquote/receipt: same as render_invoice, plus valid_until or valid_days (quote) and paid_date, payment_method (receipt). certificate: title, recipient, reason, kicker, presented, signatures [{name, role}], date, id. letter: from {name, address}, to {name, address}, subject, body (paragraphs split by blank lines), closing, signer, signer_role, date.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the tool returns a PDF link and costs 2 credits. It does not say what happens on insufficient credits or whether repeated calls generate duplicate documents, leaving minor gaps.

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?

One short paragraph, front-loaded with the document types and followed by the field-reuse note, return value, and cost. Every sentence carries information; only the slightly awkward "of another kind" opener could be tightened.

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 mutation tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the definition covers return value and cost, which is good. It remains thin on how `fields` is validated per type and what errors (missing required per-type fields, credit exhaustion) an agent should anticipate.

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 coverage is 50%: the `fields` property carries a detailed per-type breakdown and `type` has an enum but no description. The description's main added value is the cross-reference that quote/receipt fields mirror render_invoice, plus restating valid_until/paid_date hints already present in the schema. Certificate and letter field sets are left to the schema.

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 and resource ("Make a PDF") and enumerates the four document kinds it covers with a parenthetical clarifying each (quote = estimate with valid-until, receipt = marked Paid, etc.). Combined with "another kind," it clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling render_invoice.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Make a PDF of another kind" implicitly routes invoices to render_invoice and the other document kinds here, and it tells the agent that quotes/receipts reuse render_invoice fields. It stops short of an explicit "do not use this for invoices" exclusion, and the schema's enum oddly includes "invoice," which muddies the routing signal.

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

All Platemark toolsInspect
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