mcp-sing

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

production_run

Replicates a locked handwritten signature profile on a pen plotter, producing identical copies via deterministic toolpath compilation and SHA-256 locking.

Instructions

[MOVE] Replica o perfil travado (background). Recusa sem LOCKED+hash+origem. arm_motion('production_run',{profile_id})+token.

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": {
      "profile_id": "<profile_id>"
    },
    "name": "production_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`copies`	No
`profile_id`	Yes
`confirm_token`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.1Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It hints at refusal conditions ('Recusa sem LOCKED+hash+origem') and a call to arm_motion, but does not explain side effects, destructiveness, or auth requirements. The behavior is opaque.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short but not concise in a helpful way; it is cryptic and poorly structured, mixing natural language with pseudo-code without clear organization. Every sentence should be earned; here the single sentence is confusing.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a cryptic description, the tool is severely underdescribed. It fails to explain prerequisites (like LOCKED state), error conditions, return values, or how it fits into the production workflow.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any parameter meanings (e.g., copies, profile_id, confirm_token). The cryptic line 'arm_motion('production_run',{profile_id})+token' does not clarify the parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is cryptic and in Portuguese, mentioning 'Replica o perfil travado (background)' but not clearly stating the tool's purpose in English. The title is null, and the description does not differentiate from sibling tools like arm_motion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Mentions 'arm_motion' but doesn't clarify the relationship or provide exclusions. The description lacks context for an AI agent to decide when to invoke.

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