qidi-mcp

list_gcode_files

Read-onlyIdempotent

Browse G-code files on the printer with sizes, modified times, and optional print-time/filament estimates; filter by name and sort to choose the filename needed for starting a print.

Instructions

List G-code files on the printer with size, modified time, and (when scanned) estimated print time and filament use. Filter with contains, sort by name or modified time. This is where start_print's filenames come from.

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_gcode_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`root`	No	gcodes
`limit`	No
`sort_by`	No	modified
`contains`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses a real behavioral nuance — 'estimated print time and filament use (when scanned)' — meaning those fields can be absent. It omits whether results are truncated by the default limit, which matters for a paginated list.

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 that front-load what is listed, then filtering/sorting, then the downstream consumer. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

Return shape is covered by an output schema, and the description usefully flags the optional scan fields. However, for a 4-parameter tool with no schema documentation, the silent `root` and `limit` parameters (and any truncation behavior) leave an agent guessing.

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 carries the burden. It explains `contains` (filtering) and `sort_by` (name or modified time), but says nothing about `root` or `limit`, leaving half the parameters as bare names.

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 ('List G-code files on the printer') and even enumerates the returned fields (size, modified time, estimated print time, filament use). It implicitly separates itself from list_directory/list_gcode_commands but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 usage context: use `contains` to filter, sort by name or modified time, and notes this is the source of filenames for start_print. It stops short of exclusions or pointing at sibling listing tools for other file types.

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

Deploy Server