printify_get_print_providersList the print providers that can produce a given blueprint. Printify REST: GET /v1/catalog/blueprints/{blueprint_id}/print_providers.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| blueprint_id | Yes | Blueprint id — required. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already include readOnlyHint: true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the REST endpoint for technical reference but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, response shape, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a REST reference. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and scope. It does not explicitly address sibling tool differentiation beyond the blueprint scoping, but the level of detail is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%: the single parameter blueprint_id is described as 'Blueprint id — required.' The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema other than framing it as 'a given blueprint', which is already clear from the parameter name and 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 the verb 'List', the resource 'print providers', and the scope 'for a given blueprint'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool printify_list_print_providers, which likely lists all providers without a blueprint filter.
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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a specific blueprint and need its print providers) by mentioning 'a given blueprint'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_print_providers or state exclusions, so it falls short of full guidance.
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.
Every tool targets a unique resource and action, with clear distinctions between 'get' and 'list' operations for related entities (blueprints, products, orders) and separate tools for shipping quotes, publishing, and webhooks. Descriptions further clarify any potential overlap, such as 'get_print_providers' versus 'list_print_providers'.
All tool names follow a consistent 'printify_<verb>_<noun>' pattern, using singular nouns for single-resource operations and plural for listing operations. This predictable structure makes it easy to guess tool names and understand their purpose.
With 14 tools, the set is well-scoped for the Printify domain, covering catalog data (blueprints, providers, variants), shop resources (products, orders, uploads, webhooks), and key actions (shipping quotes, publishing). The count is within the ideal range and each tool serves a distinct function.
The server provides comprehensive read operations for all major resources and includes publishing, but it lacks create/update/delete tools for products, orders, uploads, and webhooks. This limits the agent to monitoring and publishing workflows rather than full lifecycle management, leaving notable gaps for a complete Printify integration.