Protoship

Request Finish my build

request_finish

Idempotent

Sends your user's working ESP32 build to Protoship as a Finish my build request: an individual service on their own hardware (case made for their board, wiring fixed, firmware flashed and tested, back as a USB-C device). Protoship sends one email to confirm the address; after that it answers within two working days with questions or a fixed price. Nothing is binding and nothing is paid until your user accepts a price. Use only your user's own email address, only with their consent. Privacy policy: https://protoship.dev/privacy

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": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "board": "<board>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "request_finish"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`board`	Yes	The board and main modules, e.g. "Cheap Yellow Display with a BME280".
`check`	No	A short summary of check_project, if you ran it. Optional.
`email`	Yes	Your user's email address.
`country`	No	Two-letter country code for the return shipment. Optional.
`description`	Yes	What the build does and where it should live (desk, wall, in the hand).
`project_url`	No	Link to the firmware repo, ESPHome YAML or AI chat. Optional.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the real behavioral context: an email is sent to confirm the address, a reply comes within two working days with questions or a fixed price, nothing is binding and nothing is paid until the user accepts. It also supplies a privacy policy URL, which matters for a tool that transmits a user's email to a third party.

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 payload is front-loaded, with the action and the service first, then the follow-up timeline and the non-binding guarantee, then the consent constraint. It's long, with the parenthetical about the hardware service slightly padded, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs before submitting on a user's behalf.

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 a one-shot external submission with six well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: what happens after the call, how long the response takes, and that no payment is committed. The only gap is that it doesn't say what the call returns or what state the request is in immediately after it's submitted.

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%, so the schema already explains board, description, check, country and project_url. The description adds only one extra constraint, that email must be the user's own and given with consent, which is genuinely useful but limited.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it sends the user's working ESP32 build to Protoship as a "Finish my build" request, and it spells out the concrete deliverable (case, wiring, firmware flashed and tested, returned as a USB-C device). That is specific enough to separate it from siblings like estimate_build and check_project without opening their schemas.

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?

It gives a clear condition for use (a working build the user wants finished) and hard preconditions: only the user's own email address, only with their consent. It doesn't name the sibling tools it supersedes in a given situation, so it stops just short of explicit alternative routing.

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?