qidi_resume_printResumes a paused 3D print on a QIDI X-Plus5 printer managed through Klipper/Moonraker.
Resume a paused print.
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_resume_print"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful precondition that the print is paused, but it does not explain what happens if no print is paused or whether resuming has side effects. With annotations carrying much of the behavioral burden, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary wording. Every word contributes to the stated action. There is no structural ambiguity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple zero-parameter action tool, and the annotations cover idempotency, destructiveness, and read-only status. The description supplies the key precondition that the print is paused. It could mention failure behavior when no print is paused, but for this level of tool complexity the definition is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not introduce parameter details that do not exist. No additional parameter meaning is needed for an empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Resume a paused print.' It is clear what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as qidi_start_print or qidi_pause_print, but the action is distinct enough for an agent to identify.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'a paused print' implies the precondition that the print must already be paused. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus qidi_start_print or how to handle a print that is not paused. Usage is therefore implied rather than clearly specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.