qidi-mcp

upload_gcode

Uploads a G-code file to the QIDI printer without starting a print. Requires confirm=true and supports overwriting existing files when overwrite=true.

Instructions

Upload a G-code file to the printer. Provide the content either as content (plain text) or content_base64 (for binary-safe transfer). Does NOT start a print — call start_print separately, deliberately. Requires confirm=true; set overwrite=true to replace an existing file.

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": {
      "filename": "<filename>"
    },
    "name": "upload_gcode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`content`	No
`filename`	Yes
`overwrite`	No
`subdirectory`	No
`confirm_token`	No
`content_base64`	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 only say this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive write, so the description carries real weight and delivers: it discloses the confirm=true safety gate, the overwrite=true condition for replacing an existing file, and the deliberate non-start-print behavior. It stops short of saying what happens when confirm is omitted or what error is raised when a file exists without overwrite.

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 sentences with no filler; the core action leads, the failure mode (not starting a print) comes second, and the gating flags close it out. 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.

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 not be described, and the mutation/confirmation model is well covered. The gap is the undocumented subdirectory and confirm_token parameters on a 7-parameter write tool, which leaves part of the callable surface unexplained.

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 compensate, and it explains content vs content_base64, confirm, and overwrite — the parameters that actually need meaning. However subdirectory and confirm_token (7 params total) get no explanation at all, and confirm_token in particular hints at a two-step confirmation flow that is left opaque.

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 ("Upload a G-code file to the printer") and immediately delimits scope by declaring it does NOT start a print, naming start_print as the distinct follow-up. An agent can separate this from run_gcode or start_print without inspecting 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?

Explicitly says the tool does not start printing and that start_print must be called separately and deliberately, which resolves the main usage ambiguity. It also gives the two content-delivery modes and the confirm/overwrite conditions, though it never contrasts itself with adjacent siblings like queue_jobs or check_print_fit that an agent might reasonably consider.

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

Deploy Server