Save a Bambu Studio project as a .3mf file to the output directory or chosen path, add a suffix if the file exists, and optionally open it in Bambu Studio.
Write the project as a Bambu Studio .3mf (default folder: the output dir, name from the project). Never overwrites: if the file exists a -2, -3... suffix is added. Optionally open it in Bambu Studio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| open_in_bambu | 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 burden and does well: it discloses the never-overwrite policy with concrete suffixing behavior, the default location and naming, and the optional side effect of launching Bambu Studio. Only the permission/precondition state (is a project required to be loaded?) is left unstated.
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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and format, then the overwrite safety rule, then the optional side effect. Every sentence carries information.
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?
For a two-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers format, safety, defaults and side effects. It stops short of stating the precondition (an open project) and the return value, though the latter is minor.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains the default path behavior (output dir, name from project) and clarifies open_in_bambu, but it never says whether 'path' is a directory or a full file path, leaving a genuine ambiguity.
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, resource and output format ('Write the project as a Bambu Studio .3mf'), which distinguishes it from export_stl and the save_*_preset siblings. An agent knows exactly what this produces.
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?
Use is strongly implied by the name and the format statement, and 'Optionally open it in Bambu Studio' hints at the open_in_bambu_studio alternative. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus export_stl or save_filament_preset, and no stated prerequisites such as an active project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.