Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SlicerBridge

SlicerBridge

by UnicornGraveyard
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

convert_model

Idempotent

Converts a multicolor .3MF project into checked, printer-specific files for selected multicolor printers, refusing incompatible models before writing any file.

Instructions

Write a ready file per printer for a multicolor .3mf project (from Bambu Studio, OrcaSlicer, a maker's fork, or a file SlicerBridge wrote), each one checked before it is kept. Files go in <out_dir>//, named ' - .3mf', or ' - - .3mf' with a suffix. A printer the model can't go to (more colors than it holds, an unknown filament type) is refused with the reason; nothing wrong is written.

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": {
      "model_path": "<model_path>"
    },
    "name": "convert_model"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoThe model's name in file names; default: the file's name, less any printer in it.
prefixNoText before every file name, e.g. 'My Shop - '.
suffixNoText after the printer in every file name, e.g. 'My Shop' for 'Dragon - Prusa XL - My Shop.3mf'.
out_dirNoOutput folder; default: an 'out' folder beside the model.
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.popular
model_pathYesPath to the .3mf project.
slice_firstNoSlice each file in its slicer before keeping it (a minute or two per printer).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: each file is checked before being kept, incompatible printers are refused with a reason, and 'nothing wrong is written.' This adds real operational context for a write-oriented tool while remaining consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action. Its three sentences each carry necessary information: what is produced, how files are named and located, and what happens for incompatible printers.

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?

Given the output schema and fully described input schema, the description supplies the missing high-level context: the conversion target, file naming convention, validation/refusal behavior, and output directory pattern. An agent can correctly understand the tool's contract without needing return-value details in the description.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds useful semantics by spelling out the exact output path and filename composition from out_dir, name, prefix, suffix, and printer, which goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: write a ready per-printer file for a multicolor .3mf project. It is clear what the tool produces and where files go, though it does not explicitly contrast its role with sibling tools such as inspect_model or verify_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?

The description implies the use case by naming the input type (a multicolor .3mf project from Bambu Studio, OrcaSlicer, etc.) and the output behavior. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over verify_files or inspect_model, nor does it give exclusion criteria beyond the per-printer refusal behavior.

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