Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fatia MCP

Fatia MCP

by anthonydaros
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

estimate_print_cost

Estimate material and optional energy costs from a sliced 3MF using user-supplied prices; copy counts multiply the whole project and missing consumption remains unknown.

Instructions

Estimate material and optional energy costs from a sliced 3MF. Prices are supplied by the user; missing consumption remains unknown. Copies multiply the whole project, not an inferred part count.

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": "estimate_print_cost"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to a sliced 3MF containing consumption estimates.
copiesNoNumber of copies of the entire project.
power_wNoAssumed average printer power in watts; requires the electricity rate.
currencyNoThree-letter currency code for all supplied prices.BRL
filament_pricesNoPer-slot prices; missing slots use the default price if supplied.
parts_per_projectNoDeclared number of parts in one project; enables allocated per-part costs.
material_price_per_kgNoDefault filament price per kilogram in the chosen currency.
electricity_price_per_kwhNoElectricity price per kWh; requires average power in watts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.47

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: missing consumption is reported as unknown rather than defaulted or errored, and copies scale the whole project rather than an inferred part count. However, it never says what the response contains (totals, per-part allocation, currency breakdown) or whether anything is written to disk, which matters for a tool with 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core purpose front-loaded and the caveats following. No filler and no restatement of the name or schema fields.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For an 8-parameter computation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key data invariants but leaves the return value entirely unspecified. An agent cannot tell whether the result is a single total, a per-slot breakdown, or a per-part allocation, which is important for deciding whether to call it before or after other tools.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it establishes that prices are user-supplied (clarifying filament_prices vs material_price_per_kg), that energy cost is optional and depends on power and rate, and that copies multiplies the project while parts_per_project drives per-part allocation. That last distinction resolves an ambiguity the schema alone leaves open.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Estimate material and optional energy costs from a sliced 3MF', which tells an agent exactly what the tool produces and what input it consumes. It does not name or distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as compare_slice_scenarios or analyze_print_waste, so differentiation is left to inference.

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: the input must be a sliced 3MF and prices must come from the user, which tells the agent something about prerequisites. There is no explicit when-to-use rule and no routing to alternatives (e.g., comparing scenarios or waste analysis), so the agent must guess the boundary.

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