Potisk triček a textilu na míru (ČR) — katalog, ceny, příprava designu a objednávky.
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool targets a distinct action: listing products, quoting, designing, ordering, and checking order status. There is no overlap between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_products, get_quote, create_design, create_order, get_order_status. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Five tools cover the core customer journey for a print-on-demand t-shirt service: browse, quote, design, order, and track. This is well-scoped and each tool earns its place.
The surface covers the essential lifecycle from product discovery to order tracking. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancellation or payment confirmation webhook), but agents can complete the primary workflow without dead ends.
Zvaliduje a uloží design (logo/text na stranách trička) a vrátí orientační cenu potisku + vrstvy s nahranými URL k použití v create_order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layers | Yes | vrstvy: {type:'image'|'text', side:'front'|'back'|'sideLeft'|'sideRight', x,y,width,height v % 0–100, rotation?, src? (URL nebo data:URL obrázku), text?, fontFamily?, fontSize?, fill?} | |
| colorId | No | ||
| product | Yes | ||
| previewBackDataUrl | No | ||
| previewFrontDataUrl | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds that the tool validates and saves a design, indicating a persistent side effect. It also discloses that it returns an indicative price and layers with uploaded URLs, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction found.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action, object, and result without redundancy. Every clause adds information: validation, saving, the design scope, and the returned data for create_order.
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?
The description covers the overall purpose and return value (price and layers), but with 5 parameters and no output schema, the absence of parameter explanations and edge cases leaves gaps. It does not mention required fields (product, layers) or the meaning of preview data URLs, so while the main context is clear, it is not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.
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 description coverage is only 20% (only 'layers' has a description). The top-level description mentions 'logo/text on t-shirt sides' which loosely relates to the 'layers' parameter but does not explain `colorId`, `product`, `previewBackDataUrl`, or `previewFrontDataUrl`. With such low coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.
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 tool validates and saves a design (logo/text on t-shirt sides) and returns an indicative price plus layers for use in create_order. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_order (which places the order) and get_quote (which presumably only quotes) by specifying the resource (design) and the output (prepared layers with URLs).
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 implies the tool is a precursor to create_order by stating the result is for use in create_order, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., use get_quote for price-only queries), so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Založí ZÁVAZNOU objednávku (čeká na platbu) a vrátí platební instrukce: částku, číslo účtu, variabilní symbol, QR a odkaz na stav objednávky (statusUrl). Zákazníkovi zároveň odejde e-mail s platebními údaji. Platí člověk převodem — agent neplatí. Volej až po výslovném souhlasu zákazníka s položkami a cenou z get_quote. Vyžaduje skutečný e-mail zákazníka (doména musí přijímat poštu, jinak 422) a consent:true. Limity: 3 objednávky / IP / den, 2 nezaplacené na jeden e-mail; překročení = 429. Při opakování po timeoutu pošli stejný idempotencyKey — vrátí se tatáž objednávka místo duplicity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | položky: {product (id/slug), colorId?, colorName?, size, quantity, printMethod?, layers? (z create_design)} | |
| notes | No | vzkaz zákazníka k objednávce (co má dílna vědět); uloží se k zakázce jako poznámka od zákazníka, delší text se ořízne | |
| consent | Yes | souhlas s obchodními podmínkami, musí být true | |
| customer | Yes | {email (povinné), name?, phone?, address?, companyName?, ico?, dic?, billingStreet?, billingCity?, billingZip?, billingCountry?} | |
| promoCode | No | ||
| shippingId | No | např. 'zasilkovna','balikovna','ppl','dpd' (volitelné) | |
| idempotencyKey | No | libovolný unikátní klíč této objednávky (např. UUID); opakované volání se stejným klíčem a obsahem vrátí stejnou objednávku (replayed:true), stejný klíč s jiným obsahem = 409 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: sends email, returns payment instructions, states that the human pays by transfer and the agent must not pay, gives rate limits and 429 behavior, 422 for invalid email domains, and precise idempotency semantics including 409 for conflicting content. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Description is dense and front-loaded with the core action and return value; every sentence carries distinct information. It is somewhat long as a single paragraph, but there is no filler.
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?
For a 7-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers return values, side effects, prerequisites, error conditions, rate limits, and idempotency behavior. The schema handles parameter details, and the description supplies enough operational context to invoke it correctly.
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 high at 86%, so the baseline is 3; description adds operational meaning beyond the schema by explaining consent must be true, email must accept mail, idempotencyKey retry behavior, and order limits. This is meaningful extra value.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: creates a binding order awaiting payment and lists concrete outputs (amount, account number, variable symbol, QR, statusUrl). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_quote or create_design.
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?
Explicitly says to call only after customer consent to items and price from get_quote, requires a real deliverable email and consent:true, and gives retry guidance with idempotencyKey. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other steps, so it lacks full when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Vrátí stav objednávky (stav platby a zpracování) podle čísla objednávky a e-mailu zákazníka. E-mail je povinný a musí se shodovat s objednávkou — jinak found:false (čísla objednávek jsou předvídatelná, bez e-mailu by šly číst cizí).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | e-mail zákazníka použitý v objednávce | ||
| orderNumber | Yes | číslo objednávky z create_order (9 číslic) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint/anonymous annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the email must match the order or the tool returns found:false, and it explains the security rationale (order numbers are predictable, so without the email constraint anyone could read others' orders). This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context an agent needs. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence establishes purpose and inputs; the second delivers the critical constraint and its rationale. Every clause earns its place, and the most important behavioral caveat is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple 2-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, the required inputs, and the failure behavior (found:false). It doesn't enumerate possible status values, but the found:false mention hints at the return shape sufficiently for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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% — both params already have descriptions — so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that the email is mandatory, must match the order, and that a mismatch produces found:false rather than an error, which clarifies the semantic contract of the email parameter.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Vrátí stav objednávky' (returns order status), specifying the exact content returned (payment status and processing status) and the identifying inputs (order number and customer email). It is clearly distinguishable from all siblings, none of which perform status lookups — create_order and create_design create, get_quote quotes, list_products lists.
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 usage context is clear: it is a read-only status lookup keyed on an order number that the input schema explicitly attributes to create_order, implying 'call after creating an order.' It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but there is no genuine ambiguity because no sibling tool offers status retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Spočítá cenu nakonfigurovaného trička (vč. DPH) — podle množství/velikostí, počtu potištěných stran a promo kódu.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sizes | No | mapování velikost→počet, např. {"M":10,"L":5} | |
| product | Yes | ||
| quantity | No | ||
| promoCode | No | ||
| printedSides | No | počet potištěných stran 0–4 | |
| printSideHeightsCm | No | výška motivu v cm na každé potištěné straně |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the price includes VAT, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose return format, error cases, or any other operational details.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and purpose, with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core behavior.
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?
With no output schema, the description should ideally convey what the tool returns, but it only states the pricing function. Given the read-only annotation and clear purpose, it is minimally complete, but the omission of printSideHeightsCm and the required product parameter leaves gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.
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 only 50%, and the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions quantity/sizes, printed sides, and promo code, but omits the required product parameter and printSideHeightsCm. For the parameters it does mention, it adds little beyond the schema, leaving key semantics unexplained.
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 tool calculates the price of a configured T-shirt including VAT, distinguishing it from siblings like create_order or get_order_status. The verb 'Spočítá' (calculates) and resource 'cenu nakonfigurovaného trička' are specific and unambiguous.
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: when pricing a configured T-shirt before placing an order. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tool names and the read-only nature make the intended usage obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Vrátí katalog triček/mikin Suorigo (barvy, velikosti, ceny vč. množstevních slev) nebo jeden produkt podle id/slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | No | id nebo slug konkrétního produktu (volitelné) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only behavior is known. The description adds context about the returned data (colors, sizes, prices, discounts) and that output varies based on whether the product parameter is provided.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, contains no filler, and is easy to scan.
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?
The tool is simple, with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety. The description adequately explains the return behavior. Although it does not mention pagination or response format, these are not essential for this low-complexity tool.
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 schema fully describes the optional 'product' parameter as id/slug, and the description echoes that role. However, it does not add extra syntax or formatting details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 a catalog of Suorigo t-shirts/hoodies (colors, sizes, prices, discounts) or a single product by id/slug. The verb and resource are specific, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like create_order or get_quote.
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 implies when to use it: to fetch product catalog or a specific product. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names are distinct enough that no ambiguity arises.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
create_order1 field changedInput schema / properties / idempotencyKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "libovolný unikátní klíč této objednávky (např. UUID); opakované volání se stejným klíčem a obsahem vrátí stejnou objednávku (replayed:true), stejný klíč s jiným obsahem = 409",
+ "maxLength": 128,
+ "type": "string"
+}get_order_status3 fields changedInput schema / properties / emailAdded value: +{
+ "description": "e-mail zákazníka použitý v objednávce",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / orderNumber / descriptionAdded value: +"číslo objednávky z create_order (9 číslic)"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "orderNumber"
-]New value: +[
+ "orderNumber",
+ "email"
+]create_order2 fields changedInput schema / properties / notes / descriptionAdded value: +"vzkaz zákazníka k objednávce (co má dílna vědět); uloží se k zakázce jako poznámka od zákazníka, delší text se ořízne"Input schema / properties / notes / maxLengthAdded value: +1000create_designcreate_orderget_order_statusget_quotelist_productsAktuelle priser i DKK, muligheder og fragtpriser for trykte reklameartikler.
Vyhledávání a detail českých firem, finanční výkazy a ukazatele z veřejných rejstříků.
Aktuelle Preise, Optionen und Versandkosten für bedruckte Werbeartikel.
Aktuella priser, alternativ och fraktkostnader för tryckta profilprodukter.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
