qidi-mcp

restart_klipper_host

Destructive

Restart the Klipper host process to reload configuration without resetting microcontrollers; use it for a lighter recovery than firmware restart, though it ends any active print.

Instructions

RESTART: restart the Klipper host process (not the MCUs, not the OS). Reloads config without resetting the microcontrollers — a lighter action than restart_firmware, but it still ends any print. Two-step confirmation.

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": "restart_klipper_host"
  }
}

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value: it discloses that config is reloaded without resetting MCUs, that any active print is terminated, and that a two-step confirmation is required. It does not explain how the confirmation token is obtained or what state the printer is left in afterward.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the comparison, then the safety warning. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is procedural: the two-step confirmation flow is named but not described, which matters for a destructive, non-idempotent operation.

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 must carry the parameter burden. 'Two-step confirmation' hints at the confirm/confirm_token pair but never explains the token's origin, lifetime, or how to pass it, leaving the agent to guess the call sequence.

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 ('restart the Klipper host process') and immediately scopes it with explicit exclusions ('not the MCUs, not the OS'), which cleanly separates it from restart_firmware and reboot_printer in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with restart_firmware ('a lighter action than restart_firmware') and warns that it 'still ends any print', giving the agent a clear selection criterion. It stops short of stating when this tool should be preferred over restart_service or when not to use it at all.

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

Deploy Server