Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SlicerBridge

SlicerBridge

by UnicornGraveyard
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

brand_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Slices 3MF files with each printer maker's installed slicer and reports the resulting output, letting you compare how different brand tools process the same model.

Instructions

Slice each file in the slicer its printer's maker ships (Creality Print, ElegooSlicer, Anycubic Slicer Next, Flash Studio, QIDI Studio), where installed, and report what that slicer makes of it.

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": {
      "paths": "<paths>"
    },
    "name": "brand_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathsYes.3mf files, or folders of them.
printersNoWhich printers: 'all', a set (popular), a vendor (bambu, creality, elegoo, anycubic, flashforge, qidi, wondermaker, prusa, snapmaker), or printer keys from list_printers, comma-separated.all

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by disclosing that results depend on which third-party slicers are installed locally ('where installed'). It stops short of saying what happens when no slicer is present or how long the external slicing takes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the vendor list parenthesized rather than sprawling. The phrasing 'the slicer its printer's maker ships' is slightly convoluted but the enumeration immediately disambiguates it.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to explain the operation and its caveats, which it does. The remaining gap is how this differs from sibling validation tools and what 'report what that slicer makes of it' produces.

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 description coverage is 100%, including what 'paths' accepts and the full vendor/key grammar for 'printers', so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete action (slice each file with the vendor-specific slicer its printer's maker ships) and enumerates the target slicers, which makes the intent unambiguous despite the opaque tool name 'brand_check'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like inspect_model or verify_files, which also operate on .3mf files.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for validating that a file slices in first-party vendor software, and the 'where installed' clause hints at a prerequisite. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to verify_files/convert_model for related checks.

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