Skip to main content
Glama

kubik-tools

by io.github.markopolovic

Create Article Profile

create_article_profile

Creates a new article in your team's kubik.tools Library -- team-scoped from creation, visible to the whole team immediately (not a personal draft).

Two-step by design, never a silent write: call once WITHOUT confirm to get a preview of exactly what would be created (including a check for an existing article that looks like a likely duplicate); call again with confirm=true and the preview_id from the first response to actually create it. A confirmed creation can be undone within 15 minutes via undo_change -- after that, edit or delete it directly in the app.

On the confirm call, only api_key, confirm, and preview_id are actually read -- every other field is required/optional per the schema for shape-consistency but ignored if resupplied, since the values captured during the preview call are what gets created; to change any of them, call again without confirm for a fresh preview.

Do not use this to log a real packing observation for an article that already exists -- use log_pack_observation instead; this tool only creates the article record itself, never packing data. Do not skip the unconfirmed preview call even if you are confident there is no duplicate -- the duplicate check only runs on that first call, and confirm=true without a fresh preview_id will be rejected.

Required: name, supplier. Optional: article_number, hs_code (exactly 8 digits if given), description_de, description_en.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesArticle name, e.g. 'Rotor hub casting'. Required.
api_keyYesYour team's kubik.tools MCP API key (kubik_mcp_...). Required.
confirmNoSet true, with preview_id, to actually create the article after reviewing the preview. Omit or false for a dry-run preview only.
hs_codeNoHS/tariff code, exactly 8 digits. Format-only check -- not verified against a real tariff database.
supplierYesSupplier name. Required.
preview_idNoThe preview_id returned by the first (unconfirmed) call. Required when confirm=true.
article_numberNoSupplier's own article/SKU number, if known.
description_deNo
description_enNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only provide negative hints (not readOnly, not idempotent, not destructive), so description carries full burden. It discloses the two-step workflow, that the tool is never a silent write, that parameters are ignored on the confirm call except api_key/confirm/preview_id, that the duplicate check only runs on the first call, and that creation is team-visible immediately. This is rich, non-obvious behavior.

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?

The description is long but well-organized, front-loading the core purpose and then explaining the two-step design, parameter behavior, and exclusions. Each paragraph earns its place, though the final required/optional list somewhat duplicates schema information. Slightly verbose but justified by the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite having no output schema, the description conveys the preview/confirm response flow, duplicate-check behavior, undo timeframe, and team-scoped visibility. It fully addresses the tool's complexity, including the subtle behavior that only preview_id and confirm matter on the second call, leaving no ambiguity about how to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema covers most parameter descriptions, but the description adds critical interplay semantics: only api_key, confirm, and preview_id are read on the confirm call, all other fields are ignored if resupplied, and preview_id is required when confirm=true. It also clarifies hs_code must be exactly 8 digits and reiterates required/optional fields. This goes well beyond schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Creates a new article in your team's kubik.tools Library', using a specific verb and resource, and immediately clarifies team-scoping. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it only creates article records, never packing data (unlike log_pack_observation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Do not use this to log a real packing observation... use log_pack_observation instead'. Also explains the mandatory two-step preview/confirm flow and warns against skipping the unconfirmed call, plus mentions undo_change for reversal within 15 minutes.

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

All kubik-tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: the freight calculation tools are separated by volume-weight, floor-space, and vehicle-fit outputs, and the Library tools are split into create, search, list, log, resolve, and undo actions. The only mild ambiguity is between resolve_quantities and resolve_prepack_quantities, and between calculate_loading_metres and check_truck_fit, but the descriptions explicitly steer the agent to the right tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_object pattern in snake_case: calculate, check, create, search, list, log, resolve, undo. Despite some verbs being semantically close, the naming is predictable and internally consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well-scoped for the freight-and-logistics domain the server covers: three calculation/fit tools and seven article-observation/resolution tools. Each tool earns its place, and the set is neither bloated nor too thin.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is covered: freight calculations, article profile creation/search, packing observation logging, and quantity resolution. Minor gaps remain in lifecycle management—there is no update/delete for article profiles and no MCP tool for creating/list consolidation groups or prepack tables, which pushes some flows back into the external app.

Resources