Slice and compare multiple STL orientation variants locally, without Snapmaker Orca rotation flags, to choose the orientation that minimizes print defects.
Transform STL copies locally, then slice without Snapmaker Orca CLI rotation flags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | ||
| nozzle | No | ||
| process | Yes | ||
| verbose | No | ||
| filament | Yes | ||
| overrides | No | ||
| orientations | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that STL copies are transformed locally and that rotation flags are not used, but it does not disclose side effects, file outputs, failure modes, or whether the operation is safe or destructive.
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, so it avoids verbosity, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. It front-loads an implementation detail instead of a clear purpose, and it omits essential context for a tool with seven parameters.
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?
This tool has seven parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter coverage, yet the description explains almost nothing. Missing return behavior, parameter semantics, prerequisites, and usage context make the description inadequate for correct invocation.
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 provides no parameter meaning. The seven parameters, including required model, process, and filament, remain entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot infer correct values from the description.
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 names actions ('Transform STL copies locally, then slice') but never states what the tool compares or returns, despite the 'compare_transformed_orientations' name. It reads as an implementation detail rather than a purpose statement, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like u1_compare_orientations or u1_slice.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling tools, prerequisites, or any selection criteria, so an agent cannot determine when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.