qidi-mcp

probe_accuracy

Repeatedly probe the same point and calculate min/max/average/median/stddev to check repeatability; a stddev above ~0.01 mm signals a mechanical problem.

Instructions

Probe the same point repeatedly and report min/max/average/median/stddev. This is the diagnostic for 'is my probe repeatable?' — a stddev above ~0.01 mm means the probe or gantry has a mechanical problem. Moves Z only. Requires confirm=true.

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": "probe_accuracy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`samples`	No
`probe_speed`	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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavior beyond those annotations: it moves Z only, requires confirm=true, and reports statistical results that indicate mechanical problems.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by diagnostic interpretation, motion scope, and the confirmation requirement. Each sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

For a physical diagnostic tool with four undocumented parameters and no schema descriptions, the definition covers purpose and key safety-related behavior. However, it omits meaning for samples, probe_speed, and confirm_token, so an agent cannot fully configure the call without guessing.

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%, so the description must explain all four parameters. It only addresses confirm=true and implies repeated sampling, leaving samples, probe_speed, and confirm_token unexplained.

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?

The description states a specific action: probe the same point repeatedly and report min/max/average/median/stddev. It frames the tool as the diagnostic for probe repeatability, which makes its purpose clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as query_probe.

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 a clear use case: checking whether the probe is repeatable, with a concrete threshold interpretation for stddev above ~0.01 mm. It also states the confirm=true prerequisite, but it does not say when not to use this tool or which alternatives to prefer.

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

Deploy Server