formlabs-local-mcp

get_device

Read-only

Retrieve printer status by device ID: connection state, tank and cartridge material, remaining print time. Use to monitor printer conditions.

Instructions

Status of one printer: connection, tank and cartridge material, time remaining.

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": {
      "device_id": "<device_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`device_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.4Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, matching the non-mutating status read. The description adds the status dimensions but does not disclose response shape, error behavior, or edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the object, scope, and the three status categories without filler. Every word carries information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter, read-only status call with annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete: it gives the resource, the status dimensions, and the required device_id is inferable from context. The main gap is no explicit return structure, but there is no output schema to elaborate.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly define device_id or its format. However, 'status of one printer' implies that the required device_id identifies the printer, providing minimal connective meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description names a specific resource (one printer) and enumerates the exact status categories returned (connection, tank/cartridge material, time remaining). The singular scope distinguishes it from collection-oriented siblings like list_devices and discover_devices.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus list_devices/discover_devices, nor any mention of how to obtain a valid device_id. The intended usage is only implied by the word 'one printer'.

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