Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fatia MCP

Fatia MCP

by anthonydaros
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

compare_slice_scenarios

Compares two printer models or up to six process-setting variants of a 3MF to estimate print time, material use, and optional operating cost.

Instructions

Compare either two printer models (printers) or up to six process-setting variants (scenarios) of the same 3MF. Printer mode estimates whole-project time/material and optional operating cost using identical saved quality settings, exact installed presets and the same configured nozzle. Preserves the original, counts all slice attempts, saves unsliced candidates for GUI review. Time/material are estimates; no quality or strength guarantee. Use prepare_print_project first for STL; printers mode retargets each model independently.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "compare_slice_scenarios"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesExisting 3MF project. Scenario mode requires the selected printer; printer mode retargets two independent copies.
currencyNoThree-letter currency for all supplied operating-cost rates.BRL
printersNoCompare exactly two distinct printer models with the same configured nozzle and saved quality settings. Does not buy or contact printers.
objectiveNoPrinter comparison priority; balanced weighs time and supplied costs, or material when unpriced.balanced
scenariosNoOne to six named process variants; use empty settings for the baseline.
max_slicesNoMaximum CLI attempts in total, including failed attempts.
bambu_modelNoPrinter model such as p1s or x2d; falls back to BAMBU_MODEL or asks.
max_minutesNoTotal wall-clock budget in minutes, including writing and slicing.
plate_indexNoZero-based plate to slice in each scenario.
material_price_per_kgNoCommon filament price for both printers, in currency/kg. Omit to leave monetary cost unknown.
electricity_price_per_kwhNoCommon electricity tariff. Requires assumed power_w for both printers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.47

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares non-destructiveness ('Preserves the original'), attempt accounting ('counts all slice attempts'), a side effect ('saves unsliced candidates for GUI review'), and an accuracy caveat ('estimates; no quality or strength guarantee'). It never describes what the comparison result contains, which is the main remaining behavioral gap given no 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The mode split is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact (equivalence conditions, side effects, caveats, prerequisite). Dense but earned; a couple of clauses pack multiple claims together, but nothing is filler.

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 an 11-parameter, dual-mode tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, side effects, and reliability caveats well. The notable omission is any indication of the shape of the returned comparison (per-scenario time/material/cost, ranking under 'objective'), which the agent cannot learn anywhere else.

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 parameter documentation is already handled by the schema itself. The description only adds incremental meaning, confirming that 'counts all slice attempts' spans max_slices and that printer mode retargets each model independently, which clarifies the printers array semantics slightly beyond the schema text.

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?

The description names a specific verb (compare) and two precisely scoped resources: exactly two printer models, or one to six named process-setting variants of the same 3MF. The two operating modes are labeled '(printers)' and '(scenarios)' so an agent can map intent to the correct parameter branch immediately.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite ('Use prepare_print_project first for STL') and states the selection condition between the two modes (whole-project model comparison vs. process variants on one 3MF). It does not name adjacent siblings such as compare_projects or compare_print_orientations, so an agent must infer from wording why this tool beats those alternatives.

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