Retrieve a print job and supervision overview: machine status, file, layer, progress, heater targets, supervisor activity, and recent events like pauses or warnings.
Job and supervision overview: machine status, file, layer, progress, heaters against their targets, whether the server-side supervisor is active, and its most recent events (pauses, warnings, connection problems).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| events | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description usefully adds that the response covers supervisor activity and event types (pauses, warnings, connection problems), which is real context, but it says nothing about freshness, polling cost, or how the events window behaves.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the highest-value content (machine status, progress, supervisor state) front-loaded and no filler. The trailing list is dense but each item earns its place as a returned field.
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 no output schema, the description does a reasonable job enumerating what comes back, but it omits the one parameter's meaning and any routing guidance. For a monitoring tool with 11 siblings it is adequate but leaves clear gaps an agent would need to resolve by trial.
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% and the single 'events' parameter (integer, default 10, max 50) is never mentioned as a parameter. 'its most recent events' hints that events are returned but does not connect to the adjustable count, its default, or its 0-50 bound, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 enumerates the specific data the tool surfaces (machine status, file, layer, progress, heater targets, supervisor state and events), which tells an agent exactly what kind of result to expect. It lacks an explicit verb and does nothing to distinguish it from the overlapping sibling get_status, keeping it below a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. With get_status and get_machine_info in the sibling set, an agent has no signal for choosing this composite overview over those narrower calls; usage must be inferred entirely from the field list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.