PrusaSlicer-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

upload_gcode

Uploads a G-code file to a networked 3D printer without starting it and returns the remote file path for later print control.

Instructions

Upload a G-code to a networked printer without starting it. Returns the remote path.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "host": "<host>",
      "gcode_path": "<gcode_path>"
    },
    "name": "upload_gcode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes
`gcode_path`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the upload is non-destructive (does not start the print) and that a remote path is returned, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, permissions, size limits, or failure modes on unreachable hosts.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the action and its key constraint are front-loaded, and the return value is mentioned last where it belongs.

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?

The return value is covered inline since no output schema exists, and the non-starting behavior is stated. However, for a two-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, missing parameter formats and error/overwrite semantics leave real gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% — neither 'host' nor 'gcode_path' has any description, format, or example. The description only echoes the concepts ('G-code', 'networked printer') and adds no syntax such as host format, path being local vs remote, or accepted file types.

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 (upload), resource (G-code), and target (networked printer), plus the crucial scope boundary 'without starting it'. That boundary implicitly separates it from start_print in the sibling list, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'without starting it' implies the use case (stage a file for later printing) but never states when to choose this over start_print or a direct print flow, nor any preconditions such as the printer being reachable or idle. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.