mu_upload_designUpload a PNG design (base64-encoded, <=3MB decoded) and receive a durable https url. Pass that url as design_url to mu_create_product. Requires Authorization: Bearer <api_key>.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | Optional original filename (informational only). | |
| data_base64 | Yes | Base64-encoded PNG bytes (a leading data:image/png;base64, prefix is OK). Max ~3MB decoded. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the input constraints (PNG format, base64 encoding, size limit), authentication requirement, and return type (durable URL). It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but for a straightforward upload tool, the key behaviors are adequately covered.
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, highly efficient, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds essential information with no fluff or repetition.
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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the input, constraints, output (durable URL), and how to use the output with a sibling tool. No additional information is necessary for this 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'filename' is 'informational only' and that 'data_base64' may include an optional prefix, which goes beyond the schema's description. This helps the agent understand parameter usage better.
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 action (upload a PNG design), the input format (base64-encoded, <=3MB), and the output (durable https URL). It also explicitly links to the sibling tool 'mu_create_product' by specifying how to use the returned URL as the 'design_url' parameter, distinguishing this tool from others.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to obtain a URL for product creation) and specifies the required authentication header. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would enhance guidance further.
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.