Design Tesla Paint Shop wraps from your AI assistant with 3D preview and export links.
The last two health checks of this connector failed. If this server requires authentication, missing or expired test credentials may be the cause. A test profile lets Glama authenticate for health checks and discover tools; it is separate from your personal connections.
If you are the author, claim ownership, then add or update a test profile under Admin → Test Profile.
Scored across 6 tools
Most tools target clearly distinct actions and resources: generating with credits, saving an existing image, fetching a project, retrieving a prompt, listing vehicles, and searching the public gallery. The only mild overlap is that create_project_from_image and generate_with_credits both end by saving a private project, but their descriptions make the input difference clear.
All tools use snake_case and begin with a clear action verb (create, generate, get, get, list, search), followed by the target resource. The pattern is predictable and readable throughout.
Six tools is well-scoped for this narrow domain. Each tool covers a distinct part of the wrap-design workflow without excessive or trivial surface area.
Core workflows are covered: generating or saving a design, retrieving a project, getting a reusable prompt, listing supported vehicles, and searching public designs. Minor gaps remain around listing a user's own projects or deleting/updating existing projects, but agents can work around these via returned links.
Save an image you already generated as a private wrap project on the signed-in account. Returns the edit page, the export page, and a view-only 3D preview page. A share link is included only when share is true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare not-readOnly, not-destructive, not-idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds real value with the visibility model (private), account targeting, and the returned page set. However, it references a "share" flag that does not appear anywhere in the schema, which muddies the behavioral contract for a zero-parameter tool.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return values, then the single conditional. Nothing is redundant.
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 does good work describing return artifacts in the absence of an output schema, and the privacy/auth context is useful. But for a tool the agent cannot parameterize, it never explains how the image is supplied, and it describes a share toggle that cannot be set, leaving the invocation model incomplete.
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?
Zero parameters gives a baseline of 4, but the description asserts a conditional "share is true" behavior with no corresponding parameter in the schema. That reference actively misleads rather than clarifying, and it also leaves unexplained how the source image is identified when no image argument exists.
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: saving an already-generated image as a private wrap project on the signed-in account. This clearly separates it from generate_with_credits (generation) and get_project (retrieval), though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.
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?
"An image you already generated" implies the precondition (use after generation, not instead of it), but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the post-generation persistence step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate a wrap image from a natural-language description with the site image pipeline, using the signed-in account's existing credits, then save a private project. Use a new requestId for each generation and reuse it when retrying the same request. A share link is included only when share is true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| share | No | When true, also return a public share link. Defaults to private. | |
| style | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| requestId | Yes | Unique id for this generation; reuse the same id and inputs when retrying | |
| vehicleId | Yes | ||
| description | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's key contribution is the cost model — that generation draws down the signed-in account's existing credits — plus the fact that a private project is created as a side effect and that share links are conditional. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though return shape and credit-failure behavior are unaddressed.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its side effects, with no filler. Minor redundancy in restating requestId reuse guidance that the schema already carries, but it is placed where an agent scanning the description will see it.
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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is produced, what it costs, what gets persisted, and the idempotency contract. It stops short of describing what a successful response contains or how credit exhaustion surfaces, which are the only notable gaps.
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?
With schema coverage at 33%, the description compensates only for requestId (new per generation, reused on retry) and share (link only when true), both of which the schema already documents. The three remaining parameters — style, title, vehicleId — plus the free-text description field get no semantic help from the description, so the compensation is partial.
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 names a specific verb (generate), the resource (a wrap image), the mechanism (site image pipeline), and the two side effects (consume credits, save a private project). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names sibling create_project_from_image or explains how they differ, leaving differentiation to inference.
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?
Usage guidance is limited to the requestId lifecycle (new id per generation, reuse on retry) and the share-true condition for links. It does not say when this tool should be chosen over create_project_from_image or whether get_wrap_prompt should be called first, so the when-to-use decision is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch one wrap project on the signed-in account, including its edit, export, and view-only 3D preview links. A share link is present only if that project was shared.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat the safety profile. It instead contributes what the response actually carries (edit/export/view-only preview links) and the conditional nature of the share link, which is real behavioral context the annotations don't cover.
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, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by one useful detail about return contents. No filler or restatement of the tool name.
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 usefully enumerates what comes back (edit, export, view-only preview links; conditional share link). The main gap is failure behavior for missing or unauthorized projectId, which an agent would need to handle 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?
There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of meaning. It implies the project must belong to the signed-in account, which adds scoping semantics, but it says nothing about the projectId format, length constraints, or what happens if the ID is unknown or not owned.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Fetch one wrap project") and adds scope ("on the signed-in account"), which rules out the list-style siblings. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but 'one' vs siblings like create_project_from_image is clear enough from the phrasing.
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?
Usage is implied by "one project" plus the required projectId, suggesting this is the single-item lookup. There's no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or reference to any sibling tool, so an agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the same Nano Banana prompt text this site sends to its in-house image generator, filled in for the chosen vehicle and description. Use it with your own image model. This does not create a project and does not use site credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| style | No | Optional style emphasis | |
| vehicleId | Yes | Vehicle id from list_vehicle_models | |
| description | Yes | Natural-language wrap description |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds relevant context beyond that: it returns the site's in-house prompt text and does not create a project or consume credits, though it does not elaborate on the exact return format beyond 'prompt text.'
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 front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by intended use and side-effect exclusions. It is appropriately sized and every sentence adds practical information.
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 annotations covering safety and schema covering all parameters, the description supplies the remaining necessary context: return value is prompt text, it is for use with an external image model, and it has no project or credit side effects. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents vehicleId, description, and style. The description reinforces vehicle and description usage but does not add meaning beyond the schema, and the optional style parameter is not discussed.
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 states a specific verb and resource: return the same Nano Banana prompt text the site sends to its in-house image generator, filled in for the chosen vehicle and description. It also distinguishes itself from generation/project-creation siblings by saying it does not create a project and does not use site credits.
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?
It gives clear intended usage: 'Use it with your own image model,' and rules out project creation and credit use. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the exclusions effectively steer the agent away from create_project_from_image and generate_with_credits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List Tesla models this site can design a Paint Shop wrap for, including which ones are open in the editor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that—site scoping and the fact that results include editor-open status—but does not describe the result shape or ordering.
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?
A single sentence with the scoping constraint and the notable extra output detail front-loaded; nothing is wasted.
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 zero-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that with no output schema, the exact return shape (fields per model) is only partially gestured at by 'which ones are open in the editor'.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter claims are made that could mislead.
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 (List) and resource (Tesla models / Paint Shop wraps) with a site-scoping qualifier, which is more than the bare name conveys. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the siblings (create_project_from_image, get_project, search_gallery) are clearly unrelated, so the omission is minor.
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 phrase 'including which ones are open in the editor' hints that this is a discovery/selection tool, but the description never states when to call it (e.g., before create_project_from_image) or any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search only designs currently visible in the public Gallery. Private, pending, rejected, and inactive works are excluded. Returns public design page links and display previews.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| vehicleId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the result-visibility filter (what is excluded from results) and the return shape (public design page links and display previews). It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or what an empty result means.
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?
Three short sentences, no filler, with the scoping constraint and exclusion list front-loaded before the return-value note. Every sentence earns its place.
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 usefully states what is returned (page links, previews), and annotations cover the safety profile. The gap is parameter behavior: an agent can call it, but cannot predict how `query` is matched or how `vehicleId` narrows results, which matters for a search 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing: it never explains what `query` matches, what `limit` defaults to or caps at (schema says 1-20 but not the default), or what `vehicleId` filters by. The `vehicleId` parameter in particular is non-obvious and undocumented anywhere.
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?
"Search only designs currently visible in the public Gallery" gives a specific verb (search) plus a precisely bounded resource (public gallery designs). The scope word "only" and the explicit exclusion list make it unambiguous what corpus is being queried, and no sibling tool competes for this operation.
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 exclusion of private, pending, rejected, and inactive works implicitly tells the agent this is not the tool for unpublished or own-project content, which is useful routing context. However, it never names where the agent should go instead for private/draft designs, nor does it mention the sibling tools that would be the alternative (e.g. get_project).
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_project_from_imagegenerate_with_creditsget_projectget_wrap_promptlist_vehicle_modelssearch_galleryAI Tesla Paint Shop wraps and lock chimes for your FrunkLab account, plus gallery and sound search.
Control your Tesla from your AI assistant - climate, charging, access, and security.
Design custom apparel from chat: AI art on tees and hoodies, then a checkout link to buy.
AI fashion design — product photos, videos, tech packs, colorways & fabric sims.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.