Skip to main content
Glama

mu

by com.wearmu

Preview a product mockup (before creating)

mu_preview_mockup

See the mockup BEFORE creating any product — nothing is created or sold, and it costs no credits. Renders the design on the real garment (Printful) when the kind supports it (source: "printful"), otherwise a clean MU product card (source: "card"), and returns a durable preview image URL. Optionally pass position (front-print DTG apparel only: tee / tee_white / hoodie / crewneck / tank / long_sleeve_tee) to preview a custom print placement — passing the SAME position to mu_create_product prints exactly what you previewed (WYSIWYG). Usually answers in 10-45s; if it returns status="processing", call this tool again with the returned preview_id to keep waiting. Rate limit: 30 previews/hour. Requires Authorization: Bearer <api_key>.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoProduct kind to preview on (required unless preview_id is set).
positionNoOptional print placement — front-print DTG apparel only (tee / tee_white / hoodie / crewneck / tank / long_sleeve_tee). The preview mockup AND the real print order use the same resolved box (WYSIWYG). Preview with mu_preview_mockup before creating.
design_urlNoAbsolute https URL of the design artwork (required unless preview_id is set). Use mu_upload_design first for local images.
preview_idNoContinue waiting on an earlier preview that returned status="processing".

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses no creation, no cost, no credit usage, durable image URL, rate limit of 30/hour, and required Authorization header. It also explains the two rendering sources (Printful vs. card) and the polling mechanism for 'processing' status.

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?

The description is somewhat lengthy but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and covering cost, rendering, WYSIWYG, timing, rate limit, and auth. Every sentence adds value, though a minor trim could improve conciseness.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the two possible return states (status='processing' or image URL), the WYSIWYG concept, rate limiting, auth requirements, and ties to sibling tools (mu_create_product, mu_upload_design). No missing critical information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions cover all 4 parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds crucial context: the position parameter is only for front-print DTG apparel, the design_url should first be uploaded via mu_upload_design, and preview_id is for continued waiting. It also explains the 'kind' parameter's rendering behavior (Printful vs. card).

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('preview') and resource ('mockup'), emphasizing it happens before creation and is cost-free. It differentiates from siblings like mu_create_product by explicitly contrasting preview vs creation and linking the 'position' parameter for WYSIWYG consistency.

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?

The description advises using this tool before creating a product, and explains when to use preview_id for polling. It implies alternatives (mu_create_product for actual creation) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it. The WYSIWYG link provides strong contextual guidance.

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

All mu toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources