Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bambu-printer-mcp

bambu-printer-mcp

by DMontgomery40
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

center_model

DestructiveIdempotent

Moves an STL model so its geometric center sits at the origin (0,0,0), aligning it for consistent positioning and further processing.

Instructions

Translate the model so its geometric center is at the origin (0,0,0)

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": {
      "stl_path": "<stl_path>"
    },
    "name": "center_model"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stl_pathYesPath to the STL file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. Given destructiveHint=true, the description should disclose whether the source STL is overwritten in place or a new file is produced, and it says nothing about that. It does not contradict the annotations, but adds no behavioral context beyond them.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the exact resulting geometry, with no filler. Nothing in it is redundant or wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a single-parameter transform tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate on the 'what'. It is incomplete about the 'how' — in-place mutation versus new output, and whether other geometry is untouched — which matters because the tool is flagged destructive.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents stl_path. The description adds no meaning about the path — notably whether it is the file that will be mutated — so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (translate/center) and a precise, measurable outcome: the geometric center is moved to origin (0,0,0). That outcome distinguishes it cleanly from sibling transforms like scale_stl, rotate_stl, lay_flat, and extend_stl_base.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as lay_flat, which also repositions a model and could plausibly be confused with centering. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the one-line outcome statement.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools