Skip to main content
Glama
orcaslicer-mcp

orcaslicer-mcp

List recent projects

list_recent_projects
Read-only

Retrieve recent OrcaSlicer projects newest first, including path, name, existence, open status, size, and modified time so you can choose one to reopen by index.

Instructions

List File > Recent, most recent first, with the index that open_recent_project takes.

For each entry: its path, project name, whether the file still exists, whether it is the open project, and its size and last-modified time. Read-only. Needs fork v2.4.2-mcp.15 or later.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_recent_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.21

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant, but the description adds real value beyond them: the sort order, the exact per-entry fields returned (path, name, existence, open state, size, mtime), and a version gate (fork v2.4.2-mcp.15+). It does not mention list length limits or empty-list behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ordering, then a compact enumeration of returned fields and constraints. No filler and nothing buried.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so field by field, plus a compatibility requirement. For a zero-parameter read tool this is everything an agent needs to call it and interpret the result.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4; the description correctly adds nothing about inputs and instead points at how the returned index pairs with open_recent_project, which is the only input-related meaning that matters here.

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 (list the File > Recent list), specifies ordering ('most recent first'), and ties the output to a named sibling ('the index that open_recent_project takes'). An agent can immediately tell this apart from browse_projects or list_presets.

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 reference to 'the index that open_recent_project takes' makes the intended workflow (list first, then open by index) clear without spelling it out as a rule. It does not state when to prefer browse_projects over this tool, so it stops short of explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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