Skip to main content
Glama
OrcaSlicer-mcp

OrcaSlicer-mcp

by BeMuCa

list_profiles

Retrieve selectable machine, process, or filament profile names for a vendor, with optional substring filtering to find the exact OrcaSlicer profile you need.

Instructions

Selectable profile names of one vendor. kind: machine | process | filament. query filters by substring, e.g. vendor="Elegoo", kind="process", query="CC 0.4".

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "vendor": "<vendor>",
      "kind": "<kind>"
    },
    "name": "list_profiles"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
queryNo
vendorYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure; 'selectable profile names' implies a read-only listing and it documents substring filtering. However, it does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, auth needs, or error behavior, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two tight sentences/lines with the core purpose first, followed by the kind values and a compact filter example. No unnecessary wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple three-parameter schema and an output schema, the definition covers the critical invocation details: vendor/kind are required, kind's allowed values, and query's substring behavior. It is less complete on sibling differentiation and vendor-match semantics, but sufficient to call the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters; it supplies the allowed kind values and explains that query is a substring filter, with a vendor/kind/query example. Vendor matching semantics (exact vs substring) and query case sensitivity remain unspecified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource ('profile names') scoped to 'one vendor' and enumerates the kind values, so an agent can tell this is a name-listing operation rather than a detail fetch. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_profile, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The example (vendor="Elegoo", kind="process", query="CC 0.4") shows how to use the filters, implying this tool is for narrow profile-name lookups. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or routing to get_profile for full profile details.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.