lulu-print-mcp

Validate cover file

validate_cover_file

Start validating a cover PDF against a product and page count, then poll the returned ID until status is NORMALIZED or ERROR. Use it to confirm print-ready cover files before ordering.

Instructions

Start checking a cover PDF against a product and page count. Poll get_cover_validation with the returned id until the status is NORMALIZED or ERROR.

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": {
      "source_url": "<source_url>",
      "pod_package_id": "<pod_package_id>",
      "interior_page_count": "<interior_page_count>"
    },
    "name": "validate_cover_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`source_url`	Yes	Public URL Lulu downloads the file from. Basic-auth credentials in the URL are allowed.
`pod_package_id`	Yes	Lulu product SKU (pod_package_id): trim size, ink, quality, binding, paper and finish. Dotted format, e.g. '0600X0900.BW.STD.PB.060UW444.MXX' (6x9in black-and-white standard paperback, matte). Lulu still accepts the older 27-character format without dots until 1 February 2027. Build one with Lulu's pricing calculator: https://developers.lulu.com/price-calculator
`interior_page_count`	Yes	Number of interior pages.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds the key behavior annotations cannot: this is asynchronous, returns an id, and must be polled to a terminal state. It does not disclose retry semantics or what a non-normalized status means.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero waste, and the action is front-loaded ahead of the follow-up polling instruction.

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 an async job-initiation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the one thing an agent needs that the schema cannot: the polling endpoint and the terminal statuses. It falls short only in not describing the returned payload beyond the id.

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 detailed descriptions for pod_package_id (format, example, deprecation date) and source_url (basic-auth allowed). The description only gestures at 'a product and page count' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Start checking a cover PDF against a product and page count.' The cover-vs-interior distinction from validate_interior_file is implicit in the wording but unmistakable given the resource name.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to poll get_cover_validation with the returned id and gives the termination condition (status NORMALIZED or ERROR). It lacks an explicit 'do not use for interior files' exclusion, but the workflow guidance is clear.

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