qidi-mcp

queue_jobs

Queue G-code files for shared 3D printer access: add your print to run after someone else's job instead of competing for the machine. Requires confirmation; auto-starts when the printer is idle.

Instructions

Add one or more G-code files to the shared print queue. Names may be loose ('benchy' finds benchy.gcode); an unknown or ambiguous name fails the whole call with the candidates. The first call (no confirm) shows what each name resolved to, its print time, and whether the Box's filament suits it; re-call with confirm=true to queue. This is the cooperative way to share the machine: when somebody else is printing, queue your file so it runs after theirs instead of competing for the printer. Requires confirm=true. If the queue is already 'ready' it auto-starts when the printer goes idle, so in that state this counts as starting a print and also needs the printer lease.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "filenames": "<filenames>"
    },
    "name": "queue_jobs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reset`	No
`confirm`	No
`filenames`	Yes
`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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the resolution-then-confirm protocol, that an unknown or ambiguous name fails the entire call with candidates, that the preview reports print time and filament compatibility, that a 'ready' queue auto-starts when the printer goes idle, and that the printer lease is then required. These are real side effects and prerequisites an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the resolution behavior, then the usage rationale — a sensible ordering with little filler. The standalone sentence 'Requires confirm=true.' partly restates earlier material and, sitting next to 'the first call (no confirm)', reads as slightly self-conflicting.

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 not be explained, and the preview/confirm workflow plus lease prerequisite are well covered. However, for a four-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage, leaving 'reset' and 'confirm_token' undefined is a real gap, as is the ambiguity between 'no confirm' preview and 'Requires confirm=true'.

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 carry all parameter meaning, and it only explains two of four: 'filenames' (loose name resolution, whole-call failure on ambiguity) and 'confirm' (two-phase preview vs. commit). The 'reset' and 'confirm_token' parameters are never mentioned at all, leaving an agent to guess how the preview token is passed back.

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 ('Add one or more G-code files to the shared print queue') and implicitly distinguishes itself from start_print by framing queueing as the cooperative alternative to 'competing for the printer'. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like control_job_queue or remove_queued_jobs without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the situation that selects this tool ('when somebody else is printing, queue your file so it runs after theirs') and prescribes the two-step invocation flow: a dry-run first call without confirm, then a re-call with confirm=true. The condition under which queueing becomes equivalent to starting a print is also called out.

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

Deploy Server