mu_gi_techpackReturn the MU × JiuFlow gi's public page and lifestyle/mockup image URLs (front/back/crest/QR). The dimensioned tech-pack PDF lives in the repo (docs/gi-isami-2026-05-12/). Owner-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Owner-only' but does not describe side effects, authentication requirements, response format, or what happens if accessed by a non-owner. The disclosure is minimal.
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 with front-loaded key information (returns URLs, owner-only). Every sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy. Highly concise and 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 output schema, the description should clarify the output format (e.g., structure of returned URLs). It mentions specific URL types but does not indicate how they are returned. The PDF location is noted, but overall completeness is adequate yet lacks output detail.
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 description coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, but it could mention that no arguments are required.
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 it returns URLs for the public page and lifestyle/mockup images (front/back/crest/QR) and mentions a PDF location. The title reinforces the purpose and ownership restriction. It is distinct from sibling tools like mu_gi_logos which handle logos.
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 mentions 'Owner-only' indicating a usage constraint but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions beyond the owner restriction.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose; no two tools appear to do the same thing. Even closely related tools (e.g., mu_quote vs mu_rfq_create, mu_preview_mockup vs mu_create_product) are differentiated by read-only vs. action, or draft vs. send.
Tool names consistently use snake_case with the mu_ prefix, and follow a clear verb_noun or noun_verb pattern. Groups like mu_gi_*, mu_ship_*, mu_rfq_* maintain internal consistency. No arbitrary or ambiguous names.
The tool count of 28 is on the higher side but appropriate for the breadth of functionality (registration, product lifecycle, manufacturing, shipping, sales, admin). It's well within a manageable range for a comprehensive server.
The tool surface covers core workflows comprehensively: registration, product CRUD (with create, update, retire), manufacturing quotes (informational and RFQ with spec drafting), shipping (CSV, tracking, status updates), sales data, and gi-specific management. Minor gaps include lack of store update/delete and product search, but these are not critical for the main use cases.