Find and submit local 3D print files for manual PrintYourDuck quote review.
Read public requirements for a PrintYourDuck manual custom 3D printing quote request. Use this before submit_quote_request to check accepted file types, material options, confirmations, restrictions, and the private-upload flow. Does not calculate instant pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| uploadFlow | Yes | |
| requestTypes | Yes | |
| restrictions | Yes | |
| marketRegions | Yes | |
| manualQuoteOnly | Yes | |
| maxFileSizeBytes | Yes | |
| acceptedFileTypes | Yes | |
| noPaymentAtUpload | Yes | |
| maxFilesPerRequest | Yes | |
| materialPreferences | Yes | |
| maxTotalFileSizeBytes | Yes | |
| requiredConfirmations | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that it reads public requirements, lists what it provides, and clarifies it does not calculate pricing. No contradictions with annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage guidance. Every sentence is necessary and adds value, with no wasted words.
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?
Given the low complexity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema for return details, the description is complete. It covers the tool's role in the workflow and what it provides.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter semantics but is adequate given the absence of parameters.
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 clearly states that the tool reads public requirements for a PrintYourDuck manual custom 3D printing quote request, listing specific items like accepted file types and material options. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that it should be used before submit_quote_request and does not calculate instant pricing.
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 description explicitly says to use this tool before submit_quote_request to check requirements, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with the sibling get_quote_status, though the role is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Look up public-safe quote status using the quote request ID and matching customer email. Alias intents: check quote status, check manual review status, check payment-link availability. Does not expose private file keys, payment URLs, or sensitive operational details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| quoteRequestId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| found | Yes | |
| status | No | |
| message | No | |
| createdAt | No | |
| shippedAt | No | |
| updatedAt | No | |
| marketRegion | No | |
| paymentStatus | No | |
| quoteRequestId | No | |
| expectedQuoteTime | No | |
| trackingAvailable | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by stating it does not expose sensitive details, reinforcing the safety profile. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.
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 read-only lookup tool with annotations and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers purpose, safety, and usage context. It is complete for an AI agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain parameter semantics. Although the description mentions 'quote request ID' and 'customer email', it does not provide details beyond the schema's property names. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate but does so minimally.
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 clearly specifies the action ('look up public-safe quote status') and the required inputs ('quote request ID and matching customer email'). It also lists alias intents, which helps distinguish this tool from its siblings like get_printyourduck_quote_requirements and submit_quote_request.
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 description explains when to use the tool ('check quote status, check manual review status, check payment-link availability') and what it does not expose, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Submit customer contact details and private uploaded file metadata for manual PrintYourDuck quote review. Alias intents: request a 3D print quote, send uploaded file for quote, submit manual quote request. Requires explicit confirmations and a stable submissionId for retries. No payment is collected and no instant price is returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| Yes | |||
| files | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| country | Yes | ||
| quantity | Yes | ||
| requestType | No | ||
| submissionId | Yes | ||
| desiredDeadline | No | ||
| rightsConfirmed | Yes | ||
| materialPreference | Yes | ||
| manualQuoteConfirmed | Yes | ||
| restrictedItemConfirmed | Yes | ||
| userSubmissionConfirmed | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | |
| error | No | |
| issues | No | |
| status | No | |
| message | Yes | |
| quoteRequestId | No | |
| expectedQuoteTime | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation already indicates non-read-only and non-destructive. Description adds value by stating 'No payment is collected and no instant price is returned' and 'Requires explicit confirmations and a stable submissionId for retries', clarifying behavioral traits like manual review and retry semantics. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Description is concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with core purpose, followed by aliases and key behavioral notes. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (16 required parameters, manual review process), the description covers purpose and high-level behavior but lacks details on parameter usage and post-submission flow. Output schema exists but is not referenced; description could better guide the agent on what to expect after submission.
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?
With 16 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description lacks detailed parameter explanations. It groups parameters as 'customer contact details' and 'file metadata' and hints at submissionId and confirmations, but fails to clarify most parameters like materialPreference, quantity, requestType, etc., leaving significant ambiguity.
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 clearly states 'Submit customer contact details and private uploaded file metadata for manual PrintYourDuck quote review' with a specific verb and resource. Alias intents further disambiguate from siblings which are about getting requirements and status.
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?
Provides alias intents to map user requests to this tool, and mentions prerequisites (explicit confirmations, stable submissionId for retries). Does not explicitly state when to use alternatives, but the sibling tool names and description context imply appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
get_printyourduck_quote_requirementsget_quote_statussubmit_quote_requestClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Turn designs into shipped parts: quote 3D printing, CNC, and decals, then check out.
Turn agent intent into physical parts: engineering review, measured geometry, calibrated pricing.
Real 3D-print slicing, quoting, DFM, orientation & material/settings advisors. Free personal tier.
Find paid machine work. Search open jobs by capability, read the contract, then bid.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: gathering requirements before submission, submitting the request, and checking status. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent get_/submit_ verb pattern, clearly indicating the action. The naming is predictable and readable.
Three tools is minimal but appropriate for the simple manual quote flow—requirements, submit, status. Slightly thin but covers essential steps without unnecessary complexity.
The surface covers the core workflow (requirements, submit, status) but lacks update or cancel operations. Minor gap, but manageable for a manual review process.
