Places STL, OBJ, or 3MF models on a Bambu Studio plate, auto-centering them when no X/Y is given and importing all 3MF objects with parts and filament assignments.
Put an STL, OBJ or 3MF on a plate. Without x/y it goes to the free spot closest to the center. From a 3MF every object is imported (with its parts and filament assignments).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| plate | No | ||
| scale | No | ||
| filament | No | ||
| rotate_z | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real behavior: auto-placement near center when x/y are omitted, and that a 3MF imports every object with parts and filament assignments. It omits critical mutation facts: whether existing plate contents are preserved or overwritten, what happens on a missing/invalid file, and whether the operation is undoable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each adds information: formats, placement fallback, 3MF multi-object behavior. No filler or repetition of the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage should explain scale, rotation, target plate, and naming. Those gaps mean an agent cannot confidently call this beyond the simplest path-only invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so all 8 parameters need the description to explain them. Only x/y (optional, auto-place) and filament (via 3MF assignments) are touched; path, plate, scale, rotate_z, and name are entirely undocumented anywhere, leaving half the surface unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Put an STL, OBJ or 3MF on a plate') and enumerates supported formats, which implicitly separates it from add_shape, duplicate_object and replace_with_stl. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence gives a clear conditional rule for the optional x/y case, which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over add_shape, duplicate_object or replace_with_stl, and no stated prerequisites such as where the file must live.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.