Find filament, process, or machine presets by keyword, optionally filtered to a printer model. Returns compatible presets with user presets first so you can select the right configuration.
Find presets. kind: filament | process | machine. query: words to match (e.g. 'eSUN PLA+', '0.16mm'). With printer, only presets compatible with it. User presets come first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| printer | 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 but adds useful behavior: printer compatibility filtering and user-preset-first ordering. It omits other important behavior such as how query matching works beyond examples, what happens with an empty query, and how many results are returned or paginated.
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?
The description is short, front-loaded with the core action, and uses compact clauses for kind, query, printer behavior, and ordering. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.
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 search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the main filtering semantics but leaves the 'limit' parameter and result format unaddressed. It is adequate to invoke correctly in common cases but incomplete.
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 the description must document all four parameters. It covers 'kind', 'query', and 'printer' meaningfully, but 'limit' is not mentioned at all, leaving one parameter undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Find presets') and enumerates the valid 'kind' categories, so the basic action is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_user_presets, though 'User presets come first' hints at broader scope.
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?
It implies the tool is for searching presets by kind and optional query/printer filters. However, it does not say when to use this instead of list_user_presets or other preset-related siblings, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.