Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
orcaslicer-mcp

orcaslicer-mcp

by MaxEllis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Move or rename a project file (can replace a file)

move_project_file
Destructive

Move or rename a .3mf project file on disk; if it is open in OrcaSlicer, the window and next save follow the new path without changing file content or dirty state.

Instructions

Move or rename a .3mf project file on disk; the window follows when it is the open project.

When it is the open project's file, the title, project name and File > Recent show the new path, and the next save_project writes there. Any other recent-list entry naming the old path is pointed at the new one. The file's content and the project's dirty state do not change. Fails with exists when something is already at to and overwrite is off; replacing it also needs Preferences > Remote API > 'Allow deleting and replacing project files' in OrcaSlicer. Needs fork v2.4.2-mcp.15 or later.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "move_project_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesIts new .3mf path (a new name in the same folder renames it).
pathYesThe .3mf file to move or rename, on the OrcaSlicer host.
overwriteNoReplace an existing file at `to`. Off by default. The open project's own file is never replaced.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.21

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by spelling out exactly what changes (title, project name, File > Recent, next save_project target, other recent-list entries) and what does not (file content, dirty state). It also discloses the failure mode ('Fails with exists'), the Preference gate for replacement, and a minimum fork version.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by effects, failure conditions, and prerequisites in a logical order with no filler sentences. It is somewhat dense and long for a three-parameter tool, but each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a destructive, three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, non-effects, error behavior, authorization prerequisites, and version compatibility. An agent has everything needed to decide whether calling it is safe.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them ('something is already at `to` and overwrite is off'). The only added value is tying overwrite to the 'exists' error and to the Preference requirement, which is modest beyond-schema detail.

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 pair (move or rename) and a specific resource (.3mf project file on disk), with the scope qualifier that the window follows only when it is the open project. This cleanly separates it from save_project, delete_project_file, and open_project without needing the 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?

Gives concrete conditions: it applies to a .3mf on the OrcaSlicer host, the open-project side effects apply only when it is the currently open file, and replacing an existing target requires both overwrite and a Preferences toggle. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. delete vs. move) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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