qidi-mcp

list_devices

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists controllable and readable printer devices—fans, output pins, LEDs, and filament sensors—with current values, providing a hardware inventory before making changes.

Instructions

Everything controllable or readable that is not a heater or an axis: fans, output pins, LEDs, filament sensors, and their current values. A quick inventory before poking at hardware.

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": "list_devices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description adds that the call returns a read-only snapshot of current values and defines the resource boundary. It does not discuss cost, scale, or whether values are live-polled versus cached, which would have pushed it higher.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: scope enumeration first, usage hint second. No filler, no restating the tool name.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description correctly covers scope and purpose instead. The remaining gap is that fans and filament sensors are listed as devices here while dedicated sibling tools also exist, and the description never clarifies which to prefer.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The stated scope ('everything controllable or readable') arguably acts as the implicit filter, but no argument semantics need explaining.

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 gives a concrete inventory scope and enumerates the resource types returned (fans, output pins, LEDs, filament sensors) plus their current values. The explicit exclusion of heaters and axes separates it from get_temperatures and get_position in the sibling set, so an agent can pick it without inspecting the schema.

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?

"A quick inventory before poking at hardware" gives a clear usage context and implies a discovery-then-act workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives such as list_fans or query_filament_sensor, which overlap with the returned device types, leaving that routing decision to inference.

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

Deploy Server