Cloudlabels

Rebind print profile

rebind_print_profile

Destructive

Update an existing print profile so its dynamic elements use columns from a sheet. Same binding rules as copy_print_profile. Bind an image element to Photo only after the user says the label should show the item photo. Does not accept designState. Two-step confirm_token: the first call without confirm_token only returns confirmation_required, a summary, and confirm_token. That call does not write, delete, cancel, or send. The second call must repeat the same arguments plus that confirm_token; that is the write. A confirm boolean is ignored. The token expires in 5 minutes and works once.

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": {
      "profile_id": "<profile_id>"
    },
    "name": "rebind_print_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bindings`	No
`profile_id`	Yes
`sheet_number`	No
`confirm_token`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond the annotations: it explains the two-step confirm_token protocol, that the first call writes nothing, that the second must repeat identical arguments plus the token, that a confirm boolean is ignored, and that the token expires in 5 minutes and is single-use. It also discloses a negative constraint (does not accept designState), which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent would otherwise get wrong.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads purpose in the first sentence, then rules, then the confirm mechanics, with no filler. Every sentence carries a distinct operational fact, including the terse 'Does not accept designState' constraint.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation protocol, side-effect scope of the first call, and token lifetime. It stops short of saying whether existing bindings are replaced or merged, what sheet_number selects, and what the successful write returns.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description carries the full burden, and it does so for confirm_token (single-use, 5-minute expiry, must accompany identical arguments) and for bindings (dynamic elements mapped to sheet columns, with the Photo/image rule). sheet_number is only inferable from 'columns from a sheet' and is never explained, which is the one real gap.

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 (update an existing print profile) plus the mechanism (its dynamic elements use columns from a sheet), so the effect is unambiguous. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from copy_print_profile by referring to that sibling's binding rules rather than duplicating them.

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?

Gives a concrete conditional rule: bind an image element to Photo only after the user says the label should show the item photo. It points at copy_print_profile as the shared-rules reference but never says when to rebind versus create/copy a profile or use list_print_profile_bindings to inspect current state, so routing is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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

All Cloudlabels 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?