set_file_printers
Set the printers/models/groups a file is assigned to.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| groups | No | ||
| models | No | ||
| printers | No |
SimplyPrint: 3D Print Farm Management
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description does not disclose whether assignments are added, overwritten, or cleared, nor what happens if groups, models, or printers are omitted. There's no mention of side effects or idempotency, so the safety profile remains unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise, though it sacrifices necessary detail; it earns its place as a clear statement of core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the effect on existing assignments, the required items parameter, or the result of the operation, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only mentions printers/models/groups and omits the required 'items' parameter. It does not clarify that 'items' are file identifiers or explain the relationship between the arrays, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Set' with the resource 'file' and names the three assignment categories (printers/models/groups). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like match_file_to_printers, which implies automatic matching rather than manual assignment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, scenarios, or mention that match_file_to_printers might be preferred for automatic assignment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
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.
Naming Consistency4/5
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.
Tool Count1/5
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.
Completeness3/5
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.