Skip to main content
Glama
JohanRouyer

Bambu Studio Advisor

by JohanRouyer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Write an edited 3MF copy

edit_3mf
Idempotent

Creates an edited copy of a Bambu 3MF project with changed global or per-object settings, without slicing, so you can share a revised project while leaving the original unchanged.

Instructions

Write a copy of a 3MF project with changed settings, without slicing. The original is left untouched unless output_path is its own path. Use it to hand the user an edited project; to measure the effect of settings, use slice_model or compare_slices instead (they never modify the original).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path of a Bambu 3MF project.
settingsNoProject settings to change, as Bambu strings: {"wall_loops": "3"}.
output_pathNoWhere to write the copy. Default: <name>_claude.3mf next to the original. Passing the original's path replaces it: only with the user's agreement.
object_settingsNoPer-object settings: {"object name or id": {"setting": "value"}}.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / object_settings / description
      Added value: +"Per-object settings: {\"object name or id\": {\"setting\": \"value\"}}."
    • addedInput schema / properties / output_path / description
      Added value: +"Where to write the copy. Default: <name>_claude.3mf next to the original. Passing the original's path replaces it: only with the user's agreement."
    • addedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Added value: +"Absolute path of a Bambu 3MF project."
    • addedInput schema / properties / settings / description
      Added value: +"Project settings to change, as Bambu strings: {\"wall_loops\": \"3\"}."
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds the crucial nuance that the source is modified only when output_path points at it, and that no slicing occurs. It doesn't cover failure modes (invalid settings keys, missing file) or what the tool reports back, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope constraint front-loaded before the alternative-tool routing. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, the no-slicing behavior, and the original-file safety rule, which is nearly everything an agent needs. A minor gap remains around the return value (e.g. the written path) and error behavior, but the core contract is complete.

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%: path, settings format, default output naming, and the replacement caveat are all documented in the schema. The description reinforces the settings-editing intent and the output_path overwrite risk but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Write a copy of a 3MF project with changed settings, without slicing") and immediately frames the exact scope: the original stays untouched. That scope statement separates it cleanly from the slicing siblings without the agent opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the intended use ("hand the user an edited project") and the alternative path for a different goal ("to measure the effect of settings, use slice_model or compare_slices instead"). It even gives the reason the alternatives are preferred (they never modify the original), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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