OrcaSlicer MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the search behavior (fuzzy matching on keywords) and output format (returns settings and their current values), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description adds useful context beyond the schema but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first defines the tool's purpose and scope, the second provides usage guidance with a concrete example. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect in results. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details like response format specifics or limitations. The description compensates well but has minor gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by providing an example ('e.g. query "infill" returns all infill-related settings') that illustrates parameter usage, but doesn't add significant semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('search for setting keys containing a keyword'), identifies the resource ('across all (or a specific type of) profiles'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on fuzzy keyword search rather than exact key operations. It provides a concrete example ('query "infill" returns all infill-related settings and their current values') that reinforces the purpose.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Useful when you don't know the exact key name') and implies alternatives by contrasting with sibling tools like 'get_profile_content' or 'update_profile_setting' that might require exact keys. It also provides context about optional filtering by profile type, guiding usage decisions.

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