lulu-print-mcp

Get interior validation

get_interior_validation

Read-only

Retrieves the result of a previously started interior file validation by validation ID, helping you confirm whether a print file passed before ordering.

Instructions

Get the result of an interior file validation started with validate_interior_file.

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": "get_interior_validation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Validation id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this reads back a previously initiated validation, but doesn't disclose whether results can be pending/incomplete or what happens for an unknown id.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specified rather than maximally informative.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description could have described what a validation result contains (pass/fail, error details) or pending states. For a simple one-parameter read tool the current text is adequate but leaves the return shape unexplained.

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 coverage is 100% with a single documented id parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the origin of that id (it came from validate_interior_file), which is mild added meaning.

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+resource: retrieve the result of an interior file validation, and ties it to the originating sibling validate_interior_file. An agent can distinguish it from validate_interior_file, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_cover_validation beyond the 'interior' qualifier.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'started with validate_interior_file,' which tells the agent this follows that call. There is no explicit guidance on polling, what to do if validation is still pending, or when not to use it.

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