qidi-mcp

cancel_print

Destructive

Cancel a running or paused 3D print after a two-step confirmation; the job cannot be resumed, so review print progress before discarding the part.

Instructions

Cancel the running or paused print. This ruins the part — the job cannot be resumed afterwards. Two-step confirmation, and it reports how far along the print was so you can see what you are throwing away.

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": "cancel_print"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`confirm_token`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the part is ruined, the job is unrecoverable, a two-step confirmation is enforced, and progress is reported. The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so this is supplementary value rather than the sole disclosure; the mechanics of the confirmation handshake remain unexplained.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the consequence, then the safety workflow. Nothing is padded or repeated from the annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not document the returned progress value, and it still signals that progress is reported. The one meaningful gap is the confirm_token acquisition flow, which matters for a destructive, non-idempotent operation.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters, and 'two-step confirmation' only loosely maps to confirm and confirm_token. It never explains what confirm_token is, where it comes from, or the required call order, leaving an agent to guess the handshake.

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 with scope qualifiers: 'Cancel the running or paused print.' An agent can distinguish it from pause_print/resume_print by the target states named, though no sibling is named explicitly and the boundary with emergency_stop is left implicit.

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?

The line 'This ruins the part — the job cannot be resumed afterwards' implies the when-not condition (use pause_print if resumability matters), but neither the alternative nor an explicit exclusion is spelled out. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server