Skip to main content
Glama
mcp-server-qidi

mcp-server-qidi

by borgels

G-code metadata

qidi_file_metadata
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve slicer metadata for one G-code file: print time, filament type/name/weight, temperatures, layer height, and object height. Use it to inspect print settings before starting a job.

Instructions

Slicer metadata for one file: estimated print time, filament type/name/weight, temperatures, layer height, object height.

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": {
      "filename": "<filename>"
    },
    "name": "qidi_file_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYesFile name relative to the printer gcodes folder, exactly as qidi_list_files returns it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return payload contents, which is valuable given no output schema, but says nothing about error behavior for missing/non-G-code files or whether metadata is read from the printer versus stored.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a clear scope statement followed by a compact field list; nothing is redundant. It is efficient, though the colon-list style is slightly terse compared to a full sentence.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned metadata fields is exactly the information an agent needs to decide the call is worthwhile. Only edge-case behavior (file not found, non-G-code file) is missing, which is minor here.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains the 'relative to the gcodes folder, exactly as qidi_list_files returns it' semantics. The description adds no further meaning about the filename, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource ('Slicer metadata for one file') and enumerates the exact fields returned (print time, filament, temperatures, layer height, object height), which clearly separates it from qidi_list_files. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It never says the filename must first come from qidi_list_files, nor when to prefer this over qidi_job_history or qidi_printer_status; usage is only inferable from the tool's name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.