Create a ProtoGen CAD workspace for another agent or workflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | No | ||
| constraints | No | ||
| design_goal | Yes | ||
| owner_agent | Yes | ||
| payment_ref | No | ||
| project_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / payment_refAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Payment Ref"
+}Input schema / properties / request_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Request Id"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'create' but omits details about side effects (e.g., whether a workspace is persisted, if it can be overwritten), dependencies, or authorization needs. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool.
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 concise sentence, but it is overly terse, sacrificing necessary detail. It could be expanded slightly to include parameter hints or usage notes without losing conciseness.
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 has 6 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of parameter and behavioral guidance.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (e.g., project_name, owner_agent, design_goal, constraints, payment_ref, request_id). The agent receives no guidance on what values to provide.
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 the action 'Create', the resource 'ProtoGen CAD workspace', and the target audience 'for another agent or workflow'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like describe, export_cad_design, generate_cad_design, etc., which focus on different tasks.
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 provides the context of use ('for another agent or workflow'), which implies when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, though the sibling names give indirect differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from workspace management to design generation and manufacturing planning, with no overlapping functionality.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_cad_workspace, generate_cad_design), but 'describe' and 'health' are one-word names, and 'manufacturing_plan_from_spec' uses a different structure, leading to minor inconsistency.
With 6 tools covering workspace creation, design generation, export, and manufacturing planning, the count is well-scoped and appropriate for the server's purpose.
The tool set covers core workflows (create, generate, export, plan) and status checks, but lacks update/delete operations for CAD designs, which may limit iterative editing.