Skip to main content
Glama
MaxEllis

orcaslicer-mcp

by MaxEllis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Set config values

set_config

Apply config changes to the active project as unsaved overrides; invalid keys are rejected atomically, preserving the current state if any key is invalid.

Instructions

Apply config changes to the active project as unsaved overrides, atomically: if any key is invalid the whole batch is rejected and nothing changes. Returns {applied, errors}.

Overrides show as modified in get_status, are not written to any preset file, and revert if the preset is reselected; call save_preset to persist them. Each apply invalidates the last slice, so re-slice afterwards. It does not run the physics gate, so for temperature, speed, acceleration, or flow keys run check_profile_physics before trusting the result. To edit a stored preset rather than the live project, use edit_preset.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
changesYesMap of OrcaSlicer config key to new value, e.g. {'layer_height': 0.2, 'sparse_infill_density': '15%'}. Values must match each setting's type; percent settings take strings like '15%'. Discover valid keys with search_settings, find_config_keys, or describe_setting.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.10
    • addedInput schema / properties / changes / description
      Added value: +"Map of OrcaSlicer config key to new value, e.g. {'layer_height': 0.2, 'sparse_infill_density': '15%'}. Values must match each setting's type; percent settings take strings like '15%'. Discover valid keys with search_settings, find_config_keys, or describe_setting."
  2. First observedv0.1.8

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses many behaviors beyond the sparse annotations: atomic rejection of invalid keys, return shape {applied, errors}, visibility in get_status, no writes to preset files, reverting on preset reselect, slice invalidation, and skipping the physics gate. It greatly enriches the agent's understanding of side effects.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The main behavior and atomicity are front-loaded, then return info, persistence semantics, invalidation, physics-gate caveat, and the alternative tool are each covered in compact sentences. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, this description is remarkably complete: it explains the return format, persistence model, side effects, prerequisites, and alternatives. The only input parameter is fully documented in the schema, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral meaning to the changes parameter: invalid keys cause whole-batch rejection, values must match setting types, and percent settings use string form. This goes slightly beyond the schema's own explanation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Apply config changes to the active project as unsaved overrides'. It clearly distinguishes itself from edit_preset (edits stored presets) and implies scope as project-level rather than object-level. The atomic all-or-nothing behavior is also stated up front.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use an alternative: 'To edit a stored preset rather than the live project, use edit_preset.' It also instructs when to run check_profile_physics for temperature/speed/acceleration/flow keys, and to re-slice after applying. These are concrete, actionable usage rules.

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

Install Server

Other Tools