Skip to main content
Glama

Karved Concepts custom drinkware quotes

Get a mockup

get_mockup
Read-only

A mockup image URL of the design on the cup, optionally in another colour of the same cup. A preview, not a proof.

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": {
      "design_id": "<design_id>",
      "design_version": "<design_version>"
    },
    "name": "get_mockup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
colourNoColour slug from list_cups
design_idYesThe dsn_ id create_design returned
design_versionYesThe design version create_design returned

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the bar is lower. The description adds a meaningful caveat that the image is a preview and not a proof, but says nothing about generation latency, caching, or whether the image is rendered on demand.

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?

Two short sentences with the caveat front-loaded and no filler. The first sentence is a noun phrase without a verb, which is slightly less directive than a full statement but still clear.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return value ('a mockup image URL'), and for a three-parameter read-only tool that is nearly everything an agent needs. The only gap is behaviour around colour fallback or image failure modes.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds a small amount of meaning by clarifying that colour means another colour of the same cup rather than an arbitrary variant.

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 states the resource produced (a mockup image URL of the design on the cup) and scopes it, so an agent can tell this apart from siblings like get_quote or create_design. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'generates'), which keeps it just short of 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The clause 'A preview, not a proof' implies the tool is for visualisation rather than approval or quoting, which is implied usage guidance only.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources