List custom field definitions for a specific entity category and optional sub-category (e.g. PRINT + PRINT_QUEUE for queue-item custom fields).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes | ||
| subCategory | No | ||
| includeDisabled | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns 'definitions' and supports filtering, which is useful context. However, it does not describe pagination, ordering, or any response details, which would further aid the agent.
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, tight sentence that packs the core purpose, filtering behavior, and an example without any fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key information.
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 list tool with strong annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's niche (entity-scoped definitions) and gives an example. Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context an agent needs to decide when to call it.
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 description explains 'category' and 'subCategory' with an example, but it does not explicitly describe the 'includeDisabled' parameter or the meaning of all enum values. The schema provides enums but no per-field descriptions, so the description only partially covers parameter semantics.
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 a verb ('List'), a resource ('custom field definitions'), and a distinguishing filter ('for a specific entity and optional sub-category'). The example (PRINT + PRINT_QUEUE) makes it unambiguous and differentiates it from the sibling list_custom_fields tool.
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?
It implicitly conveys when to use this tool — when you need custom fields scoped to an entity/sub-category rather than all custom fields. The example provides concrete guidance, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_custom_fields or mention alternatives.
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.
