Home the printer axes (move to origin position)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| axes | No | Axes to home, space-separated. Examples: "X Y Z" (all), "X Y" (XY only), "Z" (Z only) | X Y Z |
| printer_id | Yes | The printer IDs (comma-separated for multiple) | |
| snippet_id | No | ID of a gcode snippet to send. Either gcode, macro, or snippet_id is required. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value by explaining the behavior 'move to origin position', which goes beyond the annotation's readOnlyHint=false. However, it doesn't mention potential safety concerns (e.g., obstructions) or effect on ongoing operations, so it only partially discloses behavioral context.
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 sentence that is concise and to the point. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose, with no unnecessary filler.
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 simple tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks context about when homing is appropriate or any prerequisites. The optional snippet_id parameter is not explained in the description, and no mention is made of potential side effects.
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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (axes, printer_id, snippet_id). The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific details, so it relies on the schema, which is adequate.
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 tool's action ('home') and resource ('printer axes'), and clarifies what homing means ('move to origin position'). It is specific enough to distinguish from move_printer_axis, though it doesn't explicitly call out that difference.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like move_printer_axis or send_gcode. It doesn't mention prerequisites such as the printer being idle or that homing should be done before printing.
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.
