Update a queue item (amount, note, custom print time, material usage, printer assignments).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| time | No | ||
| amount | No | ||
| paused | No | ||
| printed | No | ||
| deadline | No | ||
| infinite | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| log_print | No | ||
| for_groups | No | ||
| for_models | No | ||
| persistent | No | ||
| for_printers | No | ||
| queue_item_id | Yes | ||
| material_usage | No | ||
| max_concurrent_printers | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint: false) and destructiveHint: false, so the description adds no behavioral insight beyond restating that an update occurs. It doesn't disclose side effects on dependent state (e.g., whether changing field usage affects cost or restarts printing) or clarify the meaning of ambiguous booleans like 'persistent' or 'paused'. No contradiction with annotations, but also no added transparency.
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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and leads with the primary verb. The parenthetical grouping is efficient but slightly imprecise in terminology versus the schema fields, which costs it a perfect score.
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 16-parameter mutation operating within a complex queue workflow (with siblings like approve, deny, reorder, and resubmit), this sparse description omits too much critical context about field semantics and update side effects. There's no return format to document (no output schema), but the description should compensate for the weak schema types, which it fails to do.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, yet it uses fuzzy lay terms ('custom print time', 'printer assignments') instead of mapping to actual parameter names, leaving ambiguity over which of the 16 fields correspond. It also fails to clarify the cryptic string-typed foreign keys (for_groups, for_models, for_printers) or the meaning of infinite, persistent, and paused, which are inscrutable from the schema alone.
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+resource ('Update a queue item') and the parenthetical lists key covered fields (amount, note, custom print time, material usage, printer assignments), which clearly scopes the operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like move_queue_item, reorder_queue_item, or approve_queue_item, relying on the reader to infer 'update' means content mutation.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_queue_item, reorder_queue_item, or approve_queue_item. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or cross-references to sibling tools, forcing the agent to infer usage from the field list alone.
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.
