Generate a parametric CAD design contract in a ProtoGen workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| features | No | ||
| material | No | aluminum | |
| part_name | Yes | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| payment_ref | No | ||
| workspace_id | Yes | ||
| design_intent | No | ||
| dimensions_mm | Yes | ||
| output_formats | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / payment_refAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Payment Ref"
+}Input schema / properties / request_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Request Id"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It omits behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., overwriting existing designs), authentication needs, rate limits, or implications of the payment_ref parameter. The agent learns nothing about safety or costs.
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 one sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action. However, given the tool's complexity, slightly more detail would not be excessive; still, it 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?
Despite an output schema and nested parameters, the description is a single sentence. It does not explain the concept of a 'design contract,' the role of payment_ref, or how outputs are returned. The tool is high-complexity (9 params, nested), but the description is minimal.
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 has 0% description coverage across 9 parameters, yet the description provides no parameter explanations. It fails to clarify the meaning of key parameters like design_intent, features, or payment_ref, making it extremely hard for the agent to use them correctly.
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 'Generate a parametric CAD design contract in a ProtoGen workspace,' specifying the verb 'generate,' the resource 'parametric CAD design contract,' and the scope 'ProtoGen workspace.' This distinguishes it from siblings like create_cad_workspace (workspace creation) and export_cad_design (export), leaving no ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to create_cad_workspace or manufacturing_plan_from_spec). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, suitability, or exclusions, forcing the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from workspace management to design generation and manufacturing planning, with no overlapping functionality.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_cad_workspace, generate_cad_design), but 'describe' and 'health' are one-word names, and 'manufacturing_plan_from_spec' uses a different structure, leading to minor inconsistency.
With 6 tools covering workspace creation, design generation, export, and manufacturing planning, the count is well-scoped and appropriate for the server's purpose.
The tool set covers core workflows (create, generate, export, plan) and status checks, but lacks update/delete operations for CAD designs, which may limit iterative editing.