MFT/3 hole patterns (Shaper-ready SVG) and French cleat wall plans with cut lists. Free, unofficial.
The two tools address entirely distinct concerns: one plans French cleat walls for storage, the other generates MFT/3 dog-hole patterns for workbenches. There is no functional overlap, and the descriptions clearly delineate their purposes.
Both tool names follow the same lowercase_snake_case convention and use descriptive noun phrases ('french_cleat_plan', 'mft3_hole_pattern'). The naming is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer each tool's role.
With only two tools, the set is minimal but appropriately scoped for a niche workshop-design server. Each tool serves a distinct, well-defined function, and the small count does not feel insufficient for the stated purpose.
Each tool covers its primary workflow end-to-end: planning a wall layout or generating a hole pattern with all necessary dimensions and output formats. Minor advanced features (e.g., custom parameters beyond standard presets) are missing, but the core functionality is complete.
Plan a French cleat wall for a workshop with the Fredenslund cleat system: 90 mm cleat boards and 90 mm gaps (180 mm pitch), hook plate 72 mm including 12 mm material, 30 mm buffer between hangers, rows anchored at a table height of 900 mm (the top of a cleat), top cleat at least one gap below the ceiling, lowest cleat at least 450 mm above the floor. Give the wall size and the hangers to hang (hooks, shelves, boxes, panels: left edge, the cleat row it hangs on, width, extra rows spanned below). Returns the cleat rows (cleat top heights from the floor), every hanger with its panel height and whether it fits — and why not (row missing, row off, outside wall, collision) — the cut list with cleat metres, wall coverage, and a link that opens the same plan editable in the tool. All values in mm. Call with no hangers to get the rows for a wall first. Beta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| system | No | Override the Fredenslund system (all in mm). Leave out to use the defaults | |
| hangers | No | Hangers to place. Each hangs on one cleat row, given by the height of that cleat's top edge from the floor | |
| rows_off | No | Cleat rows to switch off, by cleat top height from the floor | |
| wall_width_mm | No | Wall width in mm (200–8000, default 3000) | |
| wall_height_mm | No | Wall height in mm (300–4000, default 2400) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds transparency by describing the returned plan data and the editable link, with no hidden side effects implied.
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 information-dense but noticeably repetitive, restating cleat-related concepts and output lists multiple times. It is not badly structured, but trimming would improve clarity without losing meaning.
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 carries the burden of explaining results, and it does so reasonably well: it lists cleat rows, hanger fit status with failure reasons, cut list metrics, wall coverage, and the editable link. It does not specify exact response formatting but gives enough context for an agent to understand what will come back.
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 schema already covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds valuable system-level context: default dimensions, pitch calculation, buffer behavior, and the meaning of key values. This helps an agent interpret the parameters beyond their raw schema definitions.
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 clearly states the tool's verb and resource: it plans a French cleat wall. It also enumerates the main outputs (cleat rows, hanger fit results, cut list, wall coverage, editable link), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 a useful sequential instruction ('Call with no hangers to get the rows for a wall first') and describes how to provide wall size and hangers. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with the sibling mft3_hole_pattern or states when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Festool MFT/3 dog-hole pattern for a table top of any size. The requested width and depth snap to the nearest valid MFT/3 size (46 + 96 × n mm, n = 1–20, i.e. 142–1966 mm): Ø20 mm holes on a 96 mm grid with the first hole centred 71 mm from every edge, plus the four corner screw holes (Ø11 through, Ø15 counterbore). Returns the snapped size, hole count, every hole and screw-hole position, the Shaper export depths, the file name, a link to the true-to-scale SVG for Shaper Origin/Studio and a link that opens the size in the tool. The original MFT/3 top is 1102 × 718 mm (11 × 7 holes). Unofficial hobby tool, not affiliated with Festool or Shaper.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth_mm | Yes | Desired top depth in mm; snaps to the nearest valid size (142–1966) | |
| width_mm | Yes | Desired top width in mm; snaps to the nearest valid size (142–1966) | |
| include_svg | No | Also return the SVG markup itself (2–15 KB). By default only the link to the SVG is returned | |
| thickness_mm | No | Board thickness in mm (default 19). Through cuts are encoded at thickness + 1 mm overcut | |
| counterbore_mm | No | Counterbore depth in mm for the Ø15 screw-hole rings (default 6; 0 omits them; never deeper than the thickness) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by detailing the exact output (snapped size, hole positions, link to SVG, optional markup) and noting that through cuts are encoded with a 1 mm overcut, which is a precise behavioral trait. This transparency is excellent.
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 dense but well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then detailing grid geometry, output items, and a disclaimer. It is not excessively verbose for the amount of technical detail included, though a slight reduction in redundancy with the schema would improve 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?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description comprehensively enumerates all returned elements (snapped size, hole count, positions, export depths, filename, links, optional SVG) and clarifies the counterbore behavior and overcut. It also includes a trademark disclaimer, making the context complete for an agent to use the tool 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?
The input schema already describes each parameter with full coverage, including snapping ranges and defaults. The description repeats some of this information (e.g., the snapping formula) without adding significant new meaning to the parameters themselves. It provides context for the overall pattern but does not enhance the per-parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 clearly states that the tool generates a Festool MFT/3 dog-hole pattern with specific dimensions and snapping behavior. It specifies the resource (table top pattern) and the action (generate/return), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 description explains when the tool is applicable (any table top size, snapping to valid MFT/3 sizes) but does not explicitly differentiate it from alternatives like the sibling french_cleat_plan. It provides enough context that a user would know this is for MFT/3 patterns, but no direct comparison.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
french_cleat_planmft3_hole_patternClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity – fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge – works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge – works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Find drawer presets and create printer-aware Gridfinity baseplate configurations.
Cutlist optimization for sheet, linear and roll stock, with grain, kerf, nesting and saw exports.
Search thousands of free SVG cut files & clipart. Free for commercial use, no attribution.
Deterministic procedural SVG/PNG backgrounds: 58 generators, curated palettes, brand kits.
