Enable or disable the printer stepper motors
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | Yes | Motor state: "on" to enable motors (lock axes), "off" to disable (allow manual movement) | |
| 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 annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the state flip, such as consequences of disabling during a print or that it affects all axes. No contradiction with annotations, but no extra disclosure either.
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, focused sentence: 'Enable or disable the printer stepper motors'. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the core purpose.
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?
While the tool is simple, the description omits context around the optional snippet_id parameter, which appears to be an alternative method for sending a gcode snippet. The core function is clear, but the presence of snippet_id and its relationship to motor control is unexplained. Given no output schema and minimal complexity, the description is adequate but not fully complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description that explains the meaning of 'enabled' (lock axes / allow manual movement) and the other parameters. The main description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given the schema richness, but it doesn't compensate for any ambiguity around snippet_id.
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 uses a specific verb ('enable or disable') and resource ('printer stepper motors'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_printer_fans or set_printer_temperatures. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention that disabling motors allows manual movement, when to lock axes, or how it relates to other printer control tools such as move_printer_axis or home_printer. The description simply states the action without context.
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.
