Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
orcaslicer-mcp

orcaslicer-mcp

by MaxEllis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Find config keys

find_config_keys
Read-only

Search live OrcaSlicer settings by substring to find matching configuration keys, helping you locate the right setting among hundreds of available options.

Instructions

Find setting keys that contain a piece of text, from the live settings; search_settings also matches labels and descriptions, offline.

Helps discover among the ~600 keys.

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": {
      "substring": "<substring>"
    },
    "name": "find_config_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
substringYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.8

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's job is additive — and it does add real context: results come from the live settings rather than an offline index, and the key space is roughly 600 entries. It does not mention case sensitivity or result ordering.

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, front-loaded with the operation, followed by the disambiguation and a scale hint. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, scope (live settings) and the alternative. Only edge details like match case sensitivity and returned shape are unaddressed, which is minor here.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but there is a single parameter named 'substring' whose name is largely self-documenting. The description confirms containment matching ('contain a piece of text'), which adds a little meaning, but says nothing about case sensitivity or whether the match is anchored.

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 and resource — find setting keys that contain a substring — and immediately names the sibling it differs from (search_settings). An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives the selecting condition: this tool reads live settings and matches keys only, while search_settings matches labels/descriptions offline. That is a clear routing rule, though it stops short of an explicit 'use this when / don't use this when' phrasing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools