Launch or reuse the local G-code viewer in your browser to inspect the newest sliced print job and automatically follow new slices.
Start the viewer (if needed) and open it in the browser. It shows the newest job and follows new slices.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job disclosing side effects: it starts the viewer only 'if needed', opens it in the browser, shows the newest job, and follows new slices. It does not cover authentication, failure modes, or whether the viewer persists, but the core behavior is transparent.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and side effect, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds useful information.
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 the description need not explain return values. For a zero-parameter tool, the description supplies sufficient behavioral context, though it leaves a small gap in not routing the agent explicitly between this and open_job.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details.
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 uses a specific verb phrase ('Start the viewer ... and open it in the browser') and clearly identifies the resource and its display behavior. It partially differentiates from siblings by mentioning 'newest job' and 'follows new slices', but it never explicitly names open_job or explains how this differs from opening a specific job.
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?
Usage is implied: this is the tool for launching a live view of the newest job. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like open_job, preview, or slice, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.