Skip to main content
Glama

get_recovery_strategy_stats

Read-only

Retrieve per-strategy recovery statistics for 3D printing and filter by strategy, failure type, printer, or material to analyze recovery performance.

Instructions

Return per-strategy recovery stats for display (Pro).

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": "get_recovery_strategy_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
strategyNoOptional strategy filter (e.g. ``"power_loss_probe_resume"``). Default: "".
failure_typeNoOptional failure-type filter. Default: "".
printer_nameNoOptional printer filter (do not combine with the per-model view — it collapses to a single model). Default: "".
material_typeNoOptional material filter. Default: "".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool is for display and requires Pro, which is useful entitlement context beyond annotations, but it reveals nothing about the shape, aggregation, or scope of the returned stats.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only stats tool, though it is arguably too terse to earn a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say more about what the recovery stats contain or how they are aggregated. Annotations and the input schema cover safety and filtering, but an agent still cannot tell what a 'per-strategy recovery stat' actually returns.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four filter parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Return per-strategy recovery stats') and adds that this is for display and Pro-gated. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from close siblings such as get_recovery_statistics or get_recovery_recommendations.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The parenthetical '(Pro)' and 'for display' imply a reporting context, but the agent must infer when to select this over get_recovery_statistics.

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