orcaslicer-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Search settings

search_settings

Read-only

Find OrcaSlicer settings by matching words in their key, label, or description offline, then use describe_setting to explain a chosen setting.

Instructions

Find settings by words in their key, label or description, offline; describe_setting then explains one.

Returns compact matches (key, label, category, short tooltip), ranked key and label matches first.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.8Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds that the search is offline (no network dependency), that results are compact tuples of key/label/category/tooltip, and that key and label matches are ranked first. With no output schema, this return-shape and ranking disclosure is genuinely valuable beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return-shape information. Nothing is redundant, though the semicolon-linked sibling pointer reads slightly clipped.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, search scope, result shape, ranking, and the natural next tool. There is no material gap an agent would need filled before calling it.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that query matches against key, label, or description, which compensates for the required parameter, but the limit parameter (default 25) is never mentioned or characterized.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Find settings") and enumerates exactly which fields are searched (key, label, description). It also distinguishes itself from describe_setting, which only explains a single setting, so an agent can pick between the two without opening a 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 clearly signals the discovery-then-detail workflow by pointing to describe_setting as the follow-up for a single result. It doesn't state exclusions (e.g., when to use find_config_keys instead), but the context for calling it is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server