qidi-mcp

reboot_printer

Destructive

Restart the printer's host computer (full OS) with two-step confirmation, and block the action during active prints to avoid interruption.

Instructions

Reboot the printer's host computer (the whole OS, not just Klipper). Everything goes down for a minute or two. Two-step confirmation; refused during a print.

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": "reboot_printer"
  }
}

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds real operational context the annotations cannot convey: total system downtime of a minute or two and a hard refusal while printing. It stops short of explaining the confirmation mechanics (how a token is obtained or what a failed confirmation returns).

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, each carrying distinct information: scope, blast radius, and gating constraint. The scope clarification and downtime estimate are front-loaded, with no filler.

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?

Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, and the description covers impact and the print-state guard for a destructive whole-host reboot. The gap is the confirmation-token workflow, which matters for a tool whose parameters are entirely undocumented in the schema.

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 both parameters. The phrase 'two-step confirmation' gestures at the two-step flow but never explains what confirm does on its own, what confirm_token is, or where an agent obtains it — the single most important detail for successfully invoking this tool is left undocumented.

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 — reboot the host computer — and immediately disambiguates scope with '(the whole OS, not just Klipper)', which separates it from siblings like restart_klipper_host, restart_firmware, and restart_service.

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 a clear usage condition and an explicit exclusion: it is refused during a print, so an agent knows not to call it mid-job. It does not name the lighter-weight alternatives it competes with, so the agent must infer that restart_klipper_host is preferable when only Klipper needs restarting.

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

Deploy Server