mcp-server-qidi

Job history

qidi_job_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve recent 3D printer print jobs newest first, with file, result, start/end time, duration, and filament used; set limit to control how many jobs return.

Instructions

Recent print jobs, newest first: file, result, start/end time, print duration and filament used.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "qidi_job_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations already define the safety profile, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds useful ordering semantics ('newest first') and output fields, but does not explain result-value semantics (e.g., possible values of 'result') or how many jobs are returned by default.

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 compact sentence with the resource and ordering front-loaded, and every word earns its place. It is efficient, but the extreme terseness leaves too much unstated for the tool's needs.

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 a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description does an adequate job of implying the return shape by enumerating fields. However, it omits the limit parameter entirely, leaving the tool definition incomplete for anything more than the default invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter, `limit`, has 0% schema coverage and the description never mentions it, its default (10), or its maximum (50). With only one parameter and no schema documentation, the description was the right place to define it, and it does not, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource (print jobs) and enumerates the returned fields (file, result, start/end time, duration, filament), so a reader knows exactly what this tool yields. However, it omits the verb 'list/retrieve' and never differentiates itself from siblings such as qidi_printer_status, so it falls short of a true 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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. There is no guidance on how it relates to qidi_list_files, qidi_printer_status, or any other sibling, leaving the reader to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server