Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Slicewise

Slicewise

by gjlmotea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Compose a 3MF with negative / modifier parts

bambu_compose_model
Idempotent

Builds a Bambu project 3MF from a base STL and labeled parts—negative, modifier, support-blocker, and support-enforcer regions—for direct slicing or inspection without boolean geometry.

Instructions

Builds a Bambu project 3MF from a base body STL plus extra parts. A negative part (negative_part) cuts away where it overlaps, a modifier (modifier_part) applies different settings to its region, and support_blocker / support_enforcer control support. In a Bambu model each of these is just one more part with a label, so no geometry (boolean) engine is needed. The output can be read back item by item with bambu_inspect_project, or passed straight to bambu_slice. Writes a file to the output directory.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "basePath": "<basePath>",
      "parts": "<parts>"
    },
    "name": "bambu_compose_model"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesOutput file name (.3mf is appended automatically) and object name. Must not contain path separators.
partsYes
baseNameNoDisplay name of the base body part. Defaults to body.
basePathYesPath to the base body STL; it must be inside an allowed model directory.
plateCentreNoWhere the object lands on the plate. Defaults to the centre of a 256×256 plate (128, 128).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partsYes
nextStepYes
warningsYes
byteLengthYes
outputPathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description usefully adds that it writes a file to the output directory and that no boolean geometry engine runs, which sets expectations about output fidelity. However, it says nothing about overwrite behavior for an existing file of the same name, which matters for a file-writing tool whose annotations claim idempotency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then subtype semantics, then downstream routing and the write side effect. Every sentence carries information; only the subtype sentence partially duplicates the enum description in the schema.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a nested, multi-part composition tool that writes a file, the description covers input shape (base body plus parts), the meaning of the part taxonomy, the absence of boolean operations, and where the output goes. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the subtype semantics that the schema's own enum description already spells out, and adds a useful conceptual note that each part is just a labeled part in a Bambu model. It says nothing about parts, position, settings, or plateCentre beyond what the schema documents.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and artifact: "Builds a Bambu project 3MF from a base body STL plus extra parts." It then defines each part subtype (negative, modifier, support blocker/enforcer), which lets an agent distinguish this composition tool from siblings like bambu_slice or bambu_inspect_model without opening a 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?

It gives clear conditional guidance for choosing among subtype behaviors (cut away, apply local settings, control support) and names downstream alternatives — read back with bambu_inspect_project or pass straight to bambu_slice. It does not state when NOT to use this tool (e.g. single-body projects where a plain STL input suffices), so it stops short of explicit exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools