Slice a model across multiple controlled orientations and compare G-code results to determine the optimal print orientation.
Slice and compare controlled orientation variants.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | ||
| nozzle | No | ||
| process | Yes | ||
| verbose | No | ||
| filament | Yes | ||
| overrides | No | ||
| orientations | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It says 'slice and compare' but does not reveal whether this runs the slicer, is computationally expensive, has side effects, or returns aggregated results versus individual slices. For a comparison tool with no annotations, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though arguably too terse for a tool with this many parameters; the conciseness itself is not the problem, but the missing explanatory content is penalized in other dimensions.
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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this tool demands a richer description to be safely invocable. The one-line description does not state how to structure orientation variants, what outputs are produced, whether runs/database entries are created, or what errors to expect. It is under-specified for the tool's complexity.
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 description names none of the seven parameters. It does not explain what 'controlled orientation variants' means structurally, how the 'orientations' array should be formatted, what 'overrides' contains, or what the key required inputs mean beyond their names. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Slice and compare controlled orientation variants.' It clearly conveys the core operation of slicing multiple orientation variants and comparing them, and it is distinguishable from plain slicing or inspection tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from closely related siblings like u1_compare_transformed_orientations.
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?
The phrase 'controlled orientation variants' implies a comparison/experimentation use case, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as u1_slice, u1_compare_slices, or u1_compare_transformed_orientations. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.