Protoship

Estimate cost and lead time

estimate_build

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compares ordering a small PCB yourself (JLCPCB bare boards and Economic assembly, AISLER in Germany; fees, shipping, EU import duty and lead times read from the vendors' own pages, with links and the date checked) with having the existing build finished by Protoship. Leaves out what it does not know instead of guessing. Free, read-only.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "estimate_build"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`boards`	No	Bare boards to order. Default 5.
`joints`	No	Solder joints per board, if known.
`layers`	No	Copper layers. Default 2.
`country`	No	Two-letter EU country code of the delivery address. Default DE.
`board_mm`	No	Board width and height in mm. Default [50, 50].
`assembled`	No	Boards to have assembled. Default 0.
`extended_parts`	No	Unique parts outside basic/preferred (from match_parts).
`parts_cost_usd`	No	Parts cost per board in USD (from match_parts), if known.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses data provenance (fees, shipping, EU duty and lead times read from vendor pages, with links and the date checked) and the deliberate no-guessing behavior, which is genuinely useful for trusting the numbers. 'Free, read-only' merely restates annotations and earns no credit, but the provenance and omission policy add real value.

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 comparison is front-loaded and the scope limitation closes the sentence. The parenthetical vendor list and sourcing details make it dense but each clause carries information; only 'Free, read-only' is redundant with annotations.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 8-parameter, no-output-schema estimation tool, the description conveys what is compared, where the numbers come from, and how unknowns are handled. It could say more about the shape of the result (cost breakdown vs lead-time range), which is why it is not a 5.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented with defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete comparison: ordering bare boards/assembly from JLCPCB or AISLER versus having Protoship finish the existing build. The verb (compares) and resource (cost and lead time) are specific, and vendors are named. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings like request_finish or match_parts, so not a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied — an agent can infer this is for deciding between self-ordering and Protoship finishing — but there is no explicit 'use this when' or exclusion guidance relative to request_finish or check_project. The reference to match_parts only appears in the schema, not the description.

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

All Protoship tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?