qidi-mcp

motors_off

Disable the stepper motors so the toolhead can be moved by hand. Refused during an active print, since the printer loses its homed position and must be re-homed afterward.

Instructions

Disable the stepper motors (M84). The toolhead can then be moved by hand, but the printer loses its homed position and must be re-homed. Refused while a print is running — it would abandon the job mid-air.

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": "motors_off"
  }
}

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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses two non-obvious behaviors: the loss of homed position requiring a re-home, and a mid-print refusal guard. That is real added value; the mild tension with destructiveHint=false is defensible since homed state is recoverable, not data loss.

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 and its effect, then the safety constraint. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the behavioral consequences are well covered. However, for a tool with a confirmation-token mechanism the description says nothing about the confirmation flow, leaving an agent unsure how to invoke it safely on the first call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters, and the description never mentions 'confirm' or 'confirm_token'. The token gate in particular (how it is obtained, whether confirm=true alone suffices) is left entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Disable the stepper motors (M84)') with the concrete outcome ('toolhead can then be moved by hand'), which clearly separates it from home_axes, emergency_stop, and move_relative.

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 clear context for use (manual toolhead movement) and an explicit exclusion (refused while a print is running, since it would abandon the job). It stops short of naming the alternative tools to re-home or move after, but the when/when-not guidance is concrete.

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

Deploy Server