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

bambu-printer-mcp

by DMontgomery40
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

save_template

DestructiveIdempotent

Copy a 3MF, JSON, or config file into the local template registry and register it under a template name for reuse in Bambu print workflows.

Instructions

Copy a 3MF, JSON, or config file into the local template registry and register it under a template name.

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": {
      "source_path": "<source_path>"
    },
    "name": "save_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
source_pathYesPath to a local .3mf, .json, or .config file to save into the template registry.
template_dirNoOptional template directory override. Defaults to BAMBU_TEMPLATE_DIR or the server's configured local template registry.
template_nameNoOptional template name. Defaults to the source filename without extension.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent with that (a write into a registry). However, it never explains what makes the operation destructive, e.g. whether an existing template with the same name is overwritten, nor does it mention permissions or any error behavior. It adds file-type and default-naming context but leaves the risk profile to the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and destination come first and the file types follow. It is efficient, though it spends its only clause on enumeration rather than on behavior an agent could not already infer.

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 destructive, non-read-only mutation with no output schema, the description should say what happens on a name collision and whether the call returns anything. It covers the input side adequately but leaves the outcome and overwrite semantics unstated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so source_path, template_dir and template_name are already fully documented, including the default resolution for template_dir and the filename-derived default for template_name. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair (copy + register) and the target resource (local template registry), plus the accepted file types (3MF, JSON, config). An agent can distinguish this from list_templates or slice_with_template, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as slice_with_template, which is presumably the consumer of a saved template. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the tool name and the registry wording.

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