Set custom field values on one or more entities (queue items, files, printers, etc.). Use this to set a "deadline" or similar field across many queue items at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| values | Yes | ||
| category | Yes | ||
| entityIds | Yes | ||
| subCategory | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the operation can target multiple entities at once and gives example entity types, which is useful. However, it does not disclose overwrite semantics or behavior when values are applied to entities with existing custom field values.
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 with no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence. It is appropriately concise for what it covers, though it sacrifices important parameter detail for brevity.
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?
With four parameters, three required, two enums, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. Missing information includes how to construct the `values` array, the relationship between `category` and `subCategory`, and whether `entityIds` supports mixed entity types.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions a sample value ('deadline') and target entity types. It does not explain how `values` maps to `entityIds`, how `category` constrains the operation, or when `subCategory` is needed. This leaves the required parameters substantively undocumented.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set custom field values on one or more entities', and gives a concrete use case ('set a deadline or similar field across many queue items at once'). This distinguishes it from single-item mutators like update_queue_item and from read-only tools like list_custom_fields_for, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.
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 clear context by saying 'Use this to set a deadline or similar field across many queue items at once.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, but it does not state when not to use it or which alternative to prefer for single-entity updates.
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.
