Well Told

Generate a proof

generate_proof

Creates a draft design the same way the Well Told customizer does and shows it in the proof viewer (flat preview, 3D view, warnings, approval checkboxes). design_type "map_logo" (default): a map of a location in a Well Told map style, plus the buyer's logo; needs location. design_type "logo_only": for each area (front, back, and bottom where search_catalog lists it) the buyer's logo, text (one or two lines, a layout and a font style) or nothing; by default the logo on the front only. Placement, size and rotation are set by Well Told's artwork engine. Returns an error explaining why when an entry can't be made (an unknown place, text too long to etch, an area combination Well Told doesn't sell).

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": {
      "product_id": "<product_id>"
    },
    "name": "generate_proof"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`areas`	No	logo_only only: what goes on each area. Leave an area out to keep its default (front: logo, others: blank).
`style`	No	map_logo only: map style key from search_catalog, e.g. "cities" (Cities & Towns, default)
`logo_id`	No	From upload_logo. Required for map_logo and for any logo_only area set to logo.
`location`	No	map_logo only: the place the buyer wants drawn on the map, written like "Camp Hill, PA, United States" (town, state, country). This is part of the design (for example the town where the company started), not the user's own location; never fill it from the user's location. Well Told's engine confirms it; if it cannot, ask the buyer.
`quantity`	No	Quantity the buyer gave, if any; the viewer asks for it otherwise
`product_id`	Yes
`design_type`	No	Default map_logo
`in_hand_date`	No	Date the buyer needs them by (YYYY-MM-DD), if given; the viewer asks for it otherwise
`budget_per_unit`	No	Budget per unit in dollars, for the budget check

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent call in a closed world; the description adds substantive detail beyond that: the result is a draft seen in the proof viewer with flat preview, 3D, warnings and approval checkboxes, and failures return an explanatory error. It omits whether repeated calls create duplicate drafts, which is a notable gap given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Opens with the core action and result, then breaks out the two design types with their requirements. Sentences are long and dense but each carries information; nothing is redundant filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does so: it describes the proof viewer contents and the error behavior for the main failure classes (unknown place, over-long text, unsupported area combination). For a 9-parameter nested-schema mutation, the mode-specific requirements are adequately covered.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is high (89%), so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by tying parameters to modes ('style: map_logo only', 'areas: logo_only only'), naming upstream sources (style from search_catalog, logo_id from upload_logo), and stressing that location is a design element, not the user's own location.

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 ('Creates a draft design ... and shows it in the proof viewer') and then defines the two distinct modes, map_logo and logo_only, with what each produces. An agent can distinguish it from save_design, get_design_status, and create_checkout from the text alone.

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?

Explains when each design_type applies, the default (map_logo) and the logo_only default (logo on front only), plus what to do when the place/area is invalid ('ask the buyer'). It stops short of routing to named alternatives such as checking status afterward or persisting the draft, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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

All Well Told tools Inspect

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

Need Help?