Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
qidi-mcp

qidi-mcp

by couplet-physical-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_box_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check QIDI Box readiness by retrieving slot filament, color, vendor, extruder-synced slot, and problem flags before starting multi-color prints.

Instructions

State of QIDI's Box (the multi-filament switcher): whether the firmware will actually use it, each unit's four slots with what the printer believes is in them (filament, colour and vendor decoded to names where QIDI's tables are readable), which slot is synced to the extruder, and the live box_extras object verbatim. If the Box is not working, problems says which of the conditions QIDI's macros test is false. Compare slots with the file's filament_type / filament_colors / referenced_tools from get_file_metadata before printing a multi-colour job. Returns box_count=0 on a machine with no Box.

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_box_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description adds the meaningful edge cases an agent cannot infer — box_count=0 on a machine with no Box, name decoding only 'where QIDI's tables are readable', and the `problems` field flagging which condition QIDI's macros test is false. It does not discuss cost or freshness of box_extras, but for a read-only snapshot tool that is minor.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries information (fields returned, failure diagnosis, pre-print comparison, no-Box case). The opening sentence is long and comma-heavy, bundling four separate facts, which slightly hurts scanability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema covering the return structure, the description fills exactly the remaining gaps: the no-Box case, partial name decoding, and what the `problems` flag means. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no inputs whose semantics could be under-specified. The description instead invests its words in the shape of the returned `slots` data, which is useful though technically beyond the parameter dimension.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what state is returned: firmware usage flag, each unit's four slots with decoded filament/colour/vendor, the extruder-synced slot, and the raw box_extras object. This is far more precise than the name alone and lets an agent distinguish it from sibling readers like get_printer_status or get_file_metadata.

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?

It gives explicit context — compare `slots` against the file's filament_type / filament_colors / referenced_tools from get_file_metadata before a multi-colour print — and names a concrete sibling tool for that workflow. It does not explicitly exclude or position it against the mutating Box tools (grouped with typical Box naming), leaving when-not-to-use implicit.

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