Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PrusaSlicer-MCP

PrusaSlicer-MCP

by JorgeAlbareda
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_plate

Retrieve the current PrusaSlicer build plate state, including selected profiles, setting overrides, and objects with their instances.

Instructions

Current bed: selected profiles, setting overrides and objects with their instances.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_plate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what permissions are required—only what data is returned. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence fragment with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though the fragment form is slightly less direct than a full sentence.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description should be sufficient to understand the return value. It lists the main categories (profiles, overrides, objects/instances) but does not describe the response structure or format, leaving some ambiguity about what an agent will receive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. With zero parameters, the baseline score of 4 applies automatically.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the content returned ('Current bed: selected profiles, setting overrides and objects with their instances'), which is specific but lacks an explicit verb like 'Retrieve' and does not differentiate from siblings such as get_slicer_info. An agent can infer it is a getter, but the purpose is not stated as a clear action.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.

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