Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fatia MCP

Fatia MCP

by anthonydaros
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

compare_projects

Compares two 3MF projects to reveal differences in saved settings, filament assignments, plates, object geometry, dimensions, and world placement for review.

Instructions

Read-only comparison of two 3MF projects: saved settings, filament assignments, plates, object geometry, dimensions and world placement. Missing evidence remains unknown.

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": {
      "project_a": "<project_a>",
      "project_b": "<project_b>"
    },
    "name": "compare_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_aYesPath to the first 3MF.
project_bYesPath to the second 3MF.
bambu_modelNoOptional chosen target for identity checks; otherwise the configured model. Read-only: no slicing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.47

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description still states the operation is read-only and that missing evidence remains unknown, which are key behavioral caveats. It stops short of describing error behavior, performance, or result structure, but covers the main safety profile.

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 definition is two short clauses, front-loads the action and scope, and the unknown-evidence note earns its place. There is no unnecessary wording.

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?

For a three-parameter read-only comparator, the description identifies the compared dimensions and uncertainty handling. However, since there is no output schema, it could clarify what the comparison returns, leaving a modest gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the three parameters are already documented with descriptions. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond saying two projects are compared; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('comparison') and resource ('two 3MF projects') and enumerates the compared dimensions. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling comparison tools, so it is clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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?

It implies use for read-only project-to-project comparison and notes that missing evidence is unknown. It provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives such as compare_slice_scenarios or compare_print_orientations.

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