PrintSanity

Fix a file for printing

fix_print_file

Repair what can be repaired and return download links for the print-ready file.

Rebuilds QR codes so they scan, fixes proportions by adding paper rather than cropping, and returns a PDF the size of the paper (inside a border a home printer can reach, where the paper is one a home printer takes) plus a PNG and, where it differs, an edge-to-edge PDF for print shops. For small pieces such as business cards and invitations it also returns letter and A4 sheets with several copies and cut marks. Links last 30 minutes. Resolution is never faked: when that is the problem the result carries the prompt to regenerate with.

qr_url is the link a QR code should carry when the one on the artwork was drawn by an image model and decodes to nothing.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "fix_print_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`size`	No
`qr_url`	No
`file_url`	No
`filename`	No
`enlarge_qr`	No
`file_base64`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With annotations present (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds substantial beyond-schema behavior: links expire in 30 minutes, proportions are fixed by adding paper rather than cropping, resolution is never faked, and the exact set of returned artifacts is enumerated. It also clarifies the non-destructive repair policy, consistent with the annotations.

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 leading sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the body drifts into long nested parentheticals ('inside a border a home printer can reach, where the paper is one a home printer takes') that add length without proportional clarity. Informative overall but not tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates well on return values (artifacts, expiring links, regenerate prompt) for a complex tool. However, with six parameters at 0% schema coverage and five of them unexplained, the input side remains incomplete for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and there are six parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains only qr_url ('the link a QR code should carry...'); size, file_url, filename, file_base64, and enlarge_qr are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving most inputs ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Repair what can be repaired and return download links for the print-ready file') and details exactly what gets rebuilt (QR codes, proportions) and what is returned (PDF, PNG, edge-to-edge PDF, sheets). The distinction from siblings like check_print_file is implicit rather than stated, keeping 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?

The description implies when the repair applies (broken QR codes, wrong proportions, low resolution treated as a regenerate case) and mentions small-piece handling, but never explicitly contrasts this tool with check_print_file or plan_artwork, nor states when-not to use it. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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

All PrintSanity 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?