Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-qidi

mcp-server-qidi

by borgels
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server status

qidi_server_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reports the connected QIDI printer, enabled tool tiers, and printer responsiveness so you can verify connectivity before issuing commands.

Instructions

Which printer this server talks to, which tool tiers are switched on, and whether the printer answers.

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_server_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
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 behavior. The description adds that the call reports printer responsiveness, implying a connectivity probe, but it does not describe latency, failure modes, or return shape beyond the three categories.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and all three returned facts are listed directly. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded for a zero-parameter status check.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does so at a high level: printer target, enabled tool tiers, and printer reachability. For a simple read-only status tool with full annotation coverage, that is complete enough, though exact field names are left unspecified.

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?

There are no input parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden; the description appropriately does not discuss parameters. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 enumerates the three pieces of server status it reports: the target printer, enabled tool tiers, and printer responsiveness. That is a specific resource and scope, though it does not explicitly name qidi_printer_status as the alternative.

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?

It implies usage as a server/configuration and connectivity check by listing the returned details, but it never states when to choose this over qidi_printer_status or when not to use it. The guidance is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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