qidi-mcp

set_input_shaper

Applies known input shaper frequencies and types directly to the printer's X/Y axes, skipping a calibration sweep; changes are kept in memory only.

Instructions

Set input shaper frequency/type directly, without running a calibration sweep. Useful to apply values you already know. Applies in memory only.

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": "set_input_shaper"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`freq_x`	No
`freq_y`	No
`confirm`	No
`confirm_token`	No
`shaper_type_x`	No
`shaper_type_y`	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

Behavior3/5

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

'Applies in memory only' is genuinely valuable context beyond the annotations, warning that the change is not persisted. However, the definition never explains the confirm/confirm_token gate that the schema exposes, nor what happens to unspecified axes, and the non-idempotent hint is left unaddressed for what looks like a simple setter.

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, front-loaded with the action and its most important qualifier. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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, but for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and a confirmation workflow, the description leaves the agent without the information needed to actually complete a successful call.

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 the burden. It maps roughly onto freq_x/freq_y and shaper_type_x/shaper_type_y but adds no units (Hz?), no allowed shaper type values, and says nothing at all about confirm or confirm_token, which are the two most consequential parameters here.

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 ('Set input shaper frequency/type') and immediately bounds scope with 'directly, without running a calibration sweep,' which separates it from the input_shaper_calibrate sibling without needing to open either schema.

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?

'Useful to apply values you already know' gives a clear condition for choosing this over a calibration run. It does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use it (e.g., unknown/uncertain values), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server