Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
INFATON MCP35

INFATON MCP35

Official
by infaton
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_print_form

Get a document's printed form via PrintManagement. Without print_form_id, returns list of available forms; with it, generates the specific form.

Instructions

Получить печатную форму документа через УправлениеПечатью. Без print_form_id — список доступных форм. С ним — генерация формы.

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": {
      "document_ref": "<document_ref>"
    },
    "name": "get_print_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoФормат: info (описание), mxl_text (текст). По умолчанию info
document_refYesСсылка на документ (GUID)
print_form_idNoИдентификатор печатной формы (если пусто — список доступных)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the dual behavior and parameters, but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description is sufficient but minimal.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and behavior. No fluff; every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema, and the description does not specify the structure of returned data (e.g., what a 'list' looks like or what 'generated form' contains). The format parameter implies output changes, but this is not elaborated. The description is incomplete for a full understanding without external knowledge.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of print_form_id (list vs generate) and format (info vs mxl_text), which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states 'get printed form' and distinguishes two modes: list available forms (without print_form_id) and generate form (with print_form_id). This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates from siblings like get_form_structure.

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 explains when to use each mode (with or without print_form_id), but does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives. It provides adequate but not explicit guidance.

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