Slice STL/3MF models for Snapmaker U1 into printable G-code and get a compact analysis; enable verbose logs for deeper troubleshooting.
Slice an STL/3MF model for Snapmaker U1 and return compact G-code analysis; set verbose=true for logs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | ||
| nozzle | No | ||
| process | Yes | ||
| verbose | No | ||
| filament | Yes | ||
| overrides | No | ||
| orientation | 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output type (compact G-code analysis) and the verbose logging option, but omits side effects, compute time, file outputs, error conditions, or any prerequisites. This is minimal disclosure for a slicing operation.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the core action and a key flag. It is appropriately concise, but its brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail for a tool with this parameter complexity.
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?
Given 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of required parameters, the structure of the returned analysis, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the description alone.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only hints at 'model' and 'verbose', while the required 'process' and 'filament' and optional 'nozzle', 'overrides', and 'orientation' are entirely unaddressed. This leaves agents guessing about critical inputs.
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 clearly states the action (slice), the resource (STL/3MF model), and the target device (Snapmaker U1), and specifies the output as 'compact G-code analysis'. This distinguishes it from analysis-only tools like u1_analyze_gcode, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as u1_smoke_slice or u1_compare_slices. The only usage note, 'set verbose=true for logs', is a flag behavior, not a selection criterion, and does not help an agent decide between alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.