Get details of one specific filament spool. Use this (NOT list_filaments+grep) when the user names a spool by id or short id. Accepts spool_id (the integer DB id) or spool_short_id (the 4-character code shown on QR labels and the spool view page, e.g. "T2SO", "M0WT").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| public | No | ||
| spool_id | No | ||
| company_id | No | ||
| locationscount | No | ||
| spool_short_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the two accepted ID types (spool_id and spool_short_id) and the format of the short ID. However, it does not disclose behavior when neither ID is provided, or what 'details' are returned, leaving some gaps beyond 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 three sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. It conveys essential ID semantics with examples ('T2SO', 'M0WT') without unnecessary fluff. It could be slightly more compact, but every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, so the description carries a heavy burden. It does not explain the optional parameters, the return value structure, or the behavior when no filter is provided. For a tool with this complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves too much for the agent to infer.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for explaining all parameters. It explains spool_id and spool_short_id in detail, but ignores the other three parameters (public, company_id, locationscount), which are non-obvious boolean and integer fields. The description covers less than half of the parameters, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of one specific filament spool.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_filaments by explicitly stating 'Use this (NOT list_filaments+grep) when the user names a spool by id or short id.' This precisely identifies the tool's purpose and its unique scope.
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 gives explicit usage direction: use this tool when the user names a spool by id or short id, and explicitly warns against the alternative (list_filaments+grep). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, naming the alternative directly.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action, but several overlapping queue-related tools exist—get_next_queue_item vs get_next_queue_items_for_printers, list_queue vs list_pending_queue_items, and inspect_printer_queue—which could cause misselection. list_custom_fields vs list_custom_fields_for and add_to_queue vs create_print_job add further ambiguity.
Names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern with consistent resource nouns like print_job, queue_item, folder, and filament. Minor inconsistencies exist, such as add_to_queue vs create_folder/create_print_job, save_queue_group vs update/create, and the slightly odd home_printer and send_back_for_revision.
With 74 tools, this is far beyond the recommended MCP server size and makes the toolset unwieldy to navigate, even for a broad domain. This clearly falls into the extreme 50+ tool category.
Core operational workflows—queue, print jobs, files, filament, and printer control—are well represented. However, printer lifecycle management is missing (no add/update/delete printer), and maintenance management is limited to a read-only dashboard with no corresponding actions.
