Adjust an object's adaptive layer height in PrusaSlicer by object ID and quality setting, enabling finer detail where needed without slicing the whole model at high resolution.
Adaptive variable layer height for an object (GUI engine, v2).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quality | No | ||
| object_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers nothing: no indication that this mutates object state, whether it is reversible, whether it requires a sliced/selected object, or what '(GUI engine, v2)' implies for behavior. This is an inadequately disclosed mutation tool.
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?
It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. The parenthetical '(GUI engine, v2)' consumes part of a single fragment without adding actionable meaning.
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?
A state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, undocumented parameters, and multiple related siblings. An agent cannot safely call this correctly from the given information.
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% across two parameters. The description never mentions object_id or quality, nor the range/meaning of the quality value (default 0.5) or whether object_id must reference an object on the plate, so nothing compensates for the schema gap.
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 is a noun-phrase restatement of the tool name (set_variable_layer_height -> 'Adaptive variable layer height for an object') with no verb indicating what is actually done. It names the resource but does not distinguish this tool from the sibling add_height_range_modifier, which touches the same feature area.
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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative-tool guidance is given. With siblings like add_height_range_modifier and slice in the same list, the agent gets no help deciding when this tool is the right one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.