Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PrusaSlicer-MCP

PrusaSlicer-MCP

by JorgeAlbareda
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_printers

Retrieve all printer profiles installed in PrusaSlicer, including system and user configurations, to identify available printers before slicing or connecting.

Instructions

Printer profiles installed in the user's PrusaSlicer (system and user).

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": "list_printers"
  }
}

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 behavioral burden. It discloses the useful scoping detail that both system and user profiles are included, but says nothing about whether this is a pure read, whether it can fail (e.g. no PrusaSlicer config present), or what form the results take.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the scoping qualifier front-loaded. It is under-specified rather than bloated, so conciseness itself is good.

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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential scope but omits any return-shape or usage context. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, but not complete against a sibling set full of profile-related tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. Baseline 4 applies.

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 fragment names the resource ('Printer profiles') and its scope (system and user profiles in the user's PrusaSlicer), so an agent can infer it returns the installed printer list. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb and no explicit differentiation from the nearby list_compatible_profiles tool, so purpose is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_compatible_profiles or get_setting. The agent must infer the calling context entirely from the tool name.

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