Retrieve available print profiles for the printer and their matching filaments, so you can select the correct settings before creating or slicing a print job.
Print profiles for the printer, and the filaments that go with them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it reveals only that profiles and filaments are involved. It does not say whether results come from the currently loaded printer vs. a global library, whether it is read-only, how many items are returned, or pagination behavior — significant gaps for a zero-annotation tool.
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?
One short sentence with no waste, but it is not front-loaded with the action verb and the phrase 'for the printer' is ambiguous about which printer. Brevity is fine; the ordering and precision are not.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, but the description omits the critical implicit-context detail: with zero parameters, the profiles must come from the currently loaded printer, and that is never stated. An agent cannot tell what state must be established before calling this.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. It correctly implies the scope is determined by ambient context rather than by arguments.
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 names the resource (print profiles plus their filaments) but uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, and never says it *lists/returns* them — the agent has to infer that from the tool name. It is distinguishable from siblings like find_setting or list_jobs only by the word 'profiles'.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus find_setting or get_job, and no statement of preconditions (e.g., that a printer/project must be loaded). The agent is left to guess the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.