NiimBlue Labels MCP

Official

by Nightious-Tools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

List saved label templates

list_templates

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve stored label templates, including names, titles, printers, sizes, required fields, row counts, and last-modified dates, so you can select one to render or reuse.

Instructions

List the templates render_label save_as stored: name (pass it as render_label template or get_template name), title, printer, size in mm, the {key} fields rows must fill, row count, last modified.

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_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`dir`	Yes
`tool`	Yes
`templates`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining what each returned field means and how the template name relates to sibling calls, though most of the returned-field detail overlaps with the existing output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited field list; no filler, and the most important token (the template name usable elsewhere) is highlighted first.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description only needs to frame the listing and its downstream use — which it does completely. 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It sensibly uses the space to describe outputs instead, adding modest value over the empty schema.

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 (List) and resource (templates) scoped to those saved by render_label's save_as, then enumerates the exact fields returned. Naming the sibling tools render_label and get_template makes the distinction unambiguous without opening any 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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do with the result: 'pass it as render_label template or get_template name', which chains this tool correctly into the workflow. It stops short of stating when-not to call it or any precondition, so it is not a full 5.

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

Deploy Server