mcp-server-qidi

Printer status

qidi_printer_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve current QIDI X-Plus5 status, including job state, file, progress, layer, elapsed and remaining time, temperatures, loaded filament slot, and light state.

Instructions

Current state of the QIDI X-Plus5: job state, file, progress, layer, elapsed and estimated remaining time, nozzle/bed/chamber temperatures and targets, loaded QIDI Box slot, light.

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_printer_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the payload inventory (job state, file, progress, layer, times, three temperatures plus targets, Box slot, light), which is the main behavior an agent needs, but says nothing about refresh behavior, staleness, or what happens if the printer is offline/erroring.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the resource ('Current state of the QIDI X-Plus5') followed by a tightly packed field list. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

Without an output schema, the field enumeration is doing necessary work and mostly covers it, but units and formats (percent progress, layer numbering, remaining-time resolution, temperature scale) are unspecified. For a zero-argument status tool that is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; baseline applies. Schema coverage is 100% with an empty properties object, so nothing is left undocumented.

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 resource (current state of the QIDI X-Plus5) and enumerates the exact fields returned, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from look-alike siblings such as qidi_server_status, qidi_snapshot or qidi_box_status, leaving differentiation to name 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: 'current state' suggests polling live machine status rather than history (qidi_job_history), camera capture (qidi_snapshot) or server health (qidi_server_status). No sentence says when to prefer this tool over those alternatives or that it requires no arguments and takes no filters.

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

Deploy Server