Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SlicerBridge

SlicerBridge

by UnicornGraveyard
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

inspect_model

Read-onlyIdempotent

Describes a multicolor .3MF project's palette, used filament slots, plate dimensions, and printer bed fit, including needed scale adjustments.

Instructions

Describe a multicolor .3mf project: its palette, the filament slots it actually uses, each plate's size, and whether it fits each printer's bed (and at what scale if not).

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": "inspect_model"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context by explaining that it reports palette, used filament slots, plate sizes, and bed-fit including required scale. It does not discuss rate limits or auth needs, but those are not implied for this local inspection tool.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is dense but every clause maps to a meaningful output or scope. The only minor weakness is the run-on construction, which could be split for readability.

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?

Given the rich annotations, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It clearly establishes the inspection scope and the printer-fit calculation. It does not illuminate every edge case, but none are critical for this read-only tool.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including detailed guidance for the 'printers' argument. The description reinforces that printer bed fit is evaluated but does not add syntax, defaults, or format details beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Describe a multicolor .3mf project.' It also enumerates the inspected aspects (palette, filament slots, plate size, printer bed fit), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as verify_files or convert_model, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage by scoping itself to multicolor .3mf projects and printer bed fit, which gives useful context. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_files or convert_model, nor does it provide explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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