qidi-mcp

set_flow_factor

Adjust the live extrusion flow override (M221) as a 50–150% value during 3D printing; use sparingly because mid-print flow changes can create visible bands.

Instructions

Set the extrusion flow override (M221) as a percentage, 50–150. Applies live. Use sparingly — flow changes mid-print show up as a visible band.

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": {
      "percent": "<percent>"
    },
    "name": "set_flow_factor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`percent`	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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that the change takes effect immediately and leaves a visible band in the print. It does not explain the confirm/confirm_token gating that the schema implies, which is a notable behavioral omission.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the operation and its range are front-loaded and the caution follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 needn't be described, and the core semantics are covered. However, for a live mutation with a confirmation mechanism in the parameters, the undefined confirm/confirm_token flow leaves a functional gap.

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 parameter meaning; it compensates partially by supplying the 50–150 bounds for the required percent parameter, which the schema does not. The confirm and confirm_token parameters are left entirely unexplained in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Set the extrusion flow override (M221) as a percentage, 50–150"), including the underlying G-code and the valid domain. An agent can distinguish this from set_speed_factor by the explicit extrusion/flow framing, though no sibling is named.

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?

"Applies live" and "Use sparingly — flow changes mid-print show up as a visible band" give a clear usage condition and an implicit caution against casual use. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g., set_speed_factor) or stating 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