get_upload_pageReturns the Hark Tech upload page for submitting an STL, 3MF, or STEP file to get an instant 3D printing price when no share link is available.
Return the harktech.co.uk page where a person uploads an STL, 3MF or STEP file for an instant price, for when there is no share link to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the return value is a web page, the accepted formats are STL/3MF/STEP, and the page supports instant pricing.
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 a single sentence with no wasted language, and the key action and resource are front-loaded. Every clause contributes either purpose, accepted formats, or usage context.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: what page it returns, what file types it supports, and when to use it. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state whether the return value is a URL string or rendered page content, but that is unlikely to block correct invocation.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because no inputs are required.
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 uses a clear verb ("Return") and specific resource (the harktech.co.uk upload page), and it names the file types the page accepts. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as quote_my_file, but the "no share link" condition gives useful differentiation.
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 phrase "for when there is no share link to it" gives a clear usage condition and implies the alternative case. It does not name a specific sibling or spell out when not to use the tool, but the triggering context is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.