AIKEA

Add a fabricator

aikea_add_fabricator

Instructions

Save a CNC shop for quotes. Give an email for RFQ emails and/or a webhook URL that accepts the aikea.rfq/v1 JSON schema.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`email`	No
`notes`	No
`region`	No
`webhook`	No
`services`	No
`token_env`	No	Env var holding a bearer token for the webhook

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys the RFQ delivery mechanism (email and/or webhook) but omits everything else an agent needs for a mutation: permission/auth requirements, whether a duplicate id overwrites or errors, the significance of the id pattern, and what happens to unmentioned fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every clause carries information and there is no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than wasteful.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description only addresses 2 of the parameters and provides no safety, idempotency, or auth context. An agent cannot reliably invoke it without guessing about the other six fields.

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 description coverage is only 13% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions email and webhook (and implicitly the aikea.rfq/v1 schema), but leaves id, name, notes, region, services, and token_env completely unexplained, and never notes the required id/name pair or the id slug pattern.

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: 'Save a CNC shop for quotes.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling aikea_list_fabricators, which is a read tool. It's clear but doesn't explicitly name the sibling or the broader workflow placement.

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 this is a setup step before requesting quotes ('for quotes'), and says what to provide (email/webhook). However it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must the shop be registered before aikea_request_quote), and no mention of alternatives like aikea_list_fabricators.

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

Deploy Server