@placraftic/mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_order

Submit a new 3D printing production order with customer contact details, model files (STL, OBJ, 3MF, STEP), materials, and delivery preferences.

Instructions

Submit a new production order with customer contact info, 3D model files (STL, OBJ, 3MF, STEP), materials, and delivery preferences

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": {
      "customer": "<customer>",
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "create_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	Yes	List of items to manufacture with 3D model files
`customer`	Yes
`delivery`	No	Delivery options and shipping destination

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 doesn't state whether this is a mutating operation, whether it requires authentication, whether it triggers payment, whether it's reversible, or what happens on failure. Knowing it's an order submission, the agent is guessing at side effects.

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?

One efficient sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the payload categories without waste.

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?

For a complex mutation tool with nested objects and no annotations or output schema, the description is missing critical behavioral context: side effects, dependencies on sibling tools (list_materials, list_qualities, get_delivery_settings), and return/confirmation behavior. It's adequate but incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 67%, so the schema documents most parameters well (filePath, materialId, printingQualityId, etc.). The description lists the parameter categories but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (Submit) and resource (production order), and enumerates the key content categories (customer contact, 3D model files, materials, delivery). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_order or create_nova_poshta_waybill.

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 verb 'Submit' and the name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives such as calculate_quote (quote first?) or submit_slicing_job. No when-not or prerequisites mentioned.

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