formlabs-local-mcp

discover_devices

Read-only

Scans the local network to locate Formlabs printers, or probes a specific IP address to verify availability. Returns discovered devices for further control via the Formlabs API.

Instructions

Scan the local network for Formlabs printers. Pass ip_address to probe one host.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "discover_devices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip_address`	No
`timeout_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.4Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that passing ip_address probes a single host rather than scanning the whole network, which is useful. It does not disclose timeout behavior, output format, or failure modes, but the annotations lower the burden.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the optional parameter behavior is stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a read-only network scan tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the optional single-host probe. However, it omits what the scan returns, how timeout_seconds affects behavior, and any network/prerequisite context. Given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, this is adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains ip_address ('probe one host') but says nothing about timeout_seconds, which is a parameter with a default and wide range. The description adds some meaning for one parameter but leaves the other undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('local network for Formlabs printers'), and distinguishes the single-host probe behavior from the general scan. It is clear enough to differentiate from sibling tools like list_devices and get_device, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: scanning the local network, or probing one host with ip_address. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like list_devices/get_device, so the guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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