Slice a 3D model with OrcaSlicer into a unique output folder, then return the generated G-code artifacts and logs for print preparation.
Slice with stock OrcaSlicer in a unique output folder; return artifacts and logs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | ||
| settings | No | ||
| machine_profile | No | ||
| process_profile | No | ||
| timeout_seconds | No | ||
| filament_profile | No |
| 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 burden and does disclose two useful traits: output goes to a unique folder (avoiding collisions) and the result is artifacts plus logs. It stays silent on runtime expectations, permission/auth needs, whether prior outputs are overwritten, and failure behavior for a tool that shells out to a slicer.
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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the output behavior appended; nothing is padded or redundant.
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 no explanation, but for a 6-parameter, annotation-free execution tool the description leaves the argument space entirely undocumented and gives no guidance on when to prefer it over preview_slice.
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 coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the schema explains nothing, and the description adds no meaning for model, settings, the three profile arguments, or timeout_seconds. The only faint signal is 'stock' implying defaults, which does not compensate for the complete 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?
States a specific verb ('Slice') plus the engine (stock OrcaSlicer) and its write behavior (unique output folder, returns artifacts and logs). It does not distinguish itself from the close siblings preview_slice and prepare_print_job, so an agent must still infer which slicing-stage tool to pick.
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 guidance and no explicit alternative named, despite preview_slice and prepare_print_job sitting in the same family. The 'stock OrcaSlicer' phrasing only loosely implies this is the real/full slice rather than a preview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.