Skip to main content
Glama

Fredenslund workshop tools

French cleat wall plan

french_cleat_plan
Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
systemNoOverride the Fredenslund system (all in mm). Leave out to use the defaults
hangersNoHangers to place. Each hangs on one cleat row, given by the height of that cleat's top edge from the floor
rows_offNoCleat rows to switch off, by cleat top height from the floor
wall_width_mmNoWall width in mm (200–8000, default 3000)
wall_height_mmNoWall height in mm (300–4000, default 2400)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness3/5

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.

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 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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources