Check whether a named Klipper extra is loaded to catch missing modules early and guide configuration or include troubleshooting before running prints.
Verifica que un extra Klipper esté cargado.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| printer | No | default | |
| extra_name | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states that a verification occurs but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or side effects; while 'Verifica' implies a read, this is not explicit.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, for a tool with two parameters and an output schema, it is under-specified rather than appropriately detailed.
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?
With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete: it does not explain parameters, read-only behavior, or how the result should be interpreted. The existence of an output schema covers return values only.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly implies the extra_name parameter ('un extra Klipper') and completely omits the printer parameter and its default.
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 ('Verifica') and resource ('extra Klipper'), so the agent knows it checks whether a Klipper extra is loaded. However, it does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling verify_component_loaded, so an agent cannot easily choose between them. Clear but no sibling differentiation.
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 guidance and no mention of the sibling verify_component_loaded as an alternative. The only implied usage is the generic 'verify something' context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.