Skip to main content
Glama
ScientiaAI

@textile-designer-ai/mcp

by ScientiaAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Ready to Print

td_ready_to_print

Make a design print-ready by enlarging it 1-4x with AI-filled detail, setting target DPI in the file, and saving the output.

Instructions

Ready to Print: make a design print-ready by enlarging it 1-4x with AI detail. Best for: making a finished design print-ready: enlarging low-res buyer, archive or small-format files 1-4x with AI-filled detail and no pixelation, with your target DPI written into the file. Result files are saved to disk and their paths returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dpiNoOutput resolution in ppi (72-500). Omit to keep the image's own resolution.
waitNoWait for the job and save the outputs (default true). false returns the task_id right after submit.
imageYesSource image: a local file path or an http(s) URL. PNG, JPEG or WebP, up to 80 MB and 5000 px per side.
promptNoPrompt: optional text to guide the enhancement, e.g. 'floral chiffon print, fine linework'.
creativityNoCreativity, shown to users as 6-70% (Less 20%, More 45%, A lot 70%); send it as a decimal, 0.06-0.7. Lower stays closer to the original pixels. Recommended 35% (the website's Advanced default; its Basic view uses 45%).
output_dirNoFolder to save results in. Default: the folder of the input image (or the current directory for URL inputs). Files are never overwritten.
resemblanceNoResemblance: how closely the result must match the input, 0-100 (Fresh 20, Similar 60, Same 100). Raise it if the result drifts. Default 60.
scale_factorNoScale Factor 1-4: how much larger the output is. Default 2.
estimate_onlyNoOnly return the credit estimate; nothing is uploaded or charged.
output_formatNoOutput Format: png (PNG, Recommended): Lossless PNG file. jpeg (JPEG): Smaller JPEG file. Required: pass the mode the user named. If the user did not name one, omit it and the tool returns the modes to show them; never choose for the user.
review_settingsNoOmit it and the tool first asks whether to use the recommended settings or adjust them (unless the call already sets some). true: ask each setting one by one. false: run with the given or recommended settings without asking; pass it only after the user chose that.
timeout_secondsNoHow long to wait for the job before returning its task_id (default 240).
unlimited_bundleNoRequest the Unlimited bundle for this run (only has effect on Unlimited plans; the server decides).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare the mutation/open-world profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are written to disk and their paths returned. It does not mention credit consumption or job latency, but the output-side effect disclosure is real value beyond 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the 'Best for' detail, with no filler. It is slightly redundant, repeating 'make a design print-ready' and the 1-4x enlargement twice, which costs it the top score.

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?

For a 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential framing (what it produces, that files land on disk, where paths go) while the schema carries per-parameter detail. Missing only the cost/latency and job-vs-sync expectations that a heavy processing tool would ideally surface.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 13 parameters (including nuanced ones like creativity, resemblance, output_format and review_settings) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the 1-4x range and DPI behavior, adding nothing the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource+mechanism: make a design print-ready by enlarging 1-4x with AI-filled detail and a target DPI baked into the file. That is concrete and distinguishable in substance, but it never names or contrasts with the very similar sibling td_super_scaler, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 'Best for:' clause gives a clear usage context (finished designs, low-res buyer/archive/small-format files, 1-4x enlargement). It offers no when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tool, so the routing decision against td_super_scaler or td_anti_blur is left implicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools