Export a named FreeCAD solid and slice it with explicit OrcaSlicer machine, process, and filament presets to prepare a print-ready job.
Export one FreeCAD solid and slice it with explicit OrcaSlicer presets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cad_path | Yes | ||
| settings | No | ||
| object_name | Yes | ||
| machine_profile | Yes | ||
| process_profile | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No | ||
| filament_profile | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation (writing exported geometry and a slice result), yet says nothing about where output lands, whether existing files are overwritten, what OrcaSlicer/FreeCAD executables must be installed, or that the 600s default timeout signals a long-running operation. Sibling check_setup exists precisely because environment prerequisites matter here, and the description never mentions them.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition, and the core action leads. Its brevity is a virtue for scanning, though it tips into under-specification rather than tightness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a multi-stage CAD-export-plus-slicing tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description omits the pipeline prerequisites, profile-parameter format, timeout semantics, and output location — a large gap given the tool's complexity.
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 7 parameters, five of which are required, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Explicit OrcaSlicer presets' loosely gestures at machine/process/filament_profile, but cad_path, object_name, settings, and timeout_seconds get no clarification whatsoever — notably whether profile params take names, keys, or file paths.
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 sentence names two specific verbs (export, slice) and both resources (a FreeCAD solid, OrcaSlicer presets), so the compound end-to-end nature of the tool is clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling pair export_freecad_stl + run_slice, which an agent could compose to achieve the same result.
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?
There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite list, and no named alternative. The phrase 'explicit OrcaSlicer presets' faintly implies this is for callers who already have profile names rather than using find_profiles/derive_profile, but the agent must infer that entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.