Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bambi A1 MCP

Bambi A1 MCP

by chandraaditya
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

print_job

DestructiveIdempotent

Submits an explicitly prepared print job over LAN or cloud after fresh printer checks, ignoring repeated job IDs and supporting optional AMS slot mapping.

Instructions

Print an explicitly prepared job using LAN or cloud with fresh printer checks. Direct execution; no MCP elicitation. Repeated job IDs are not dispatched twice. Optional ams_mapping uses zero-based AMS Lite slots; omit for one external spool.

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>",
      "route": "<route>"
    },
    "name": "print_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
routeYesExplicit transport. Cloud does not require LAN reachability.
job_idYes
recoveryNoOnly for a terminal FAILED previous job after the user confirms cleanup and requests a new print. Fresh telemetry must show idle, no active stage, no errors/HMS and heaters off. Never clears a fault or resumes the old job.
ams_mappingNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.7

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: direct execution with no MCP elicitation, fresh printer checks before dispatch, and the fact that repeated job IDs are not dispatched twice (which explains the idempotentHint). It does not describe what happens on a failed dispatch or what the caller receives back.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and transport, then the safety and idempotency notes. Dense but every clause carries information; the AMS slot detail is slightly compressed.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety gating (fresh checks, recovery preconditions) and dispatch semantics. The main remaining gap is failure/return behavior, which is minor given the absence of an output schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%; the description clarifies ams_mapping (zero-based AMS Lite slots, omit for external spool) and route, but job_id is left undefined beyond the phrase 'explicitly prepared job'. The recovery object is already fully documented in the schema, so the description adds only partial value.

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 verb and resource ('Print an explicitly prepared job') plus the transport scope (LAN or cloud), which separates it from prepare_job and control_print. It never names a sibling outright, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete conditions: use route lan or cloud, omit ams_mapping for a single external spool, and supply recovery only for a terminal FAILED job after user-confirmed cleanup. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over control_print or verify_job.

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