Fetch complete hardware details, maintenance schedule, and active print queue for a specific 3D printer by numeric ID.
Retrieve complete hardware details, maintenance schedule, and active print queue for a specific 3D printer by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique numeric ID of the printer |
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 discloses the content categories returned (hardware, maintenance, queue), which is genuinely useful and implies a read-only operation, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes for an invalid/nonexistent ID, or rate limits.
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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and no filler; every clause adds scope 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?
For a single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned data categories, partially compensating for the missing output schema. It is nearly complete, missing only edge-case and error behavior.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Unique numeric ID of the printer'. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format, range, or lookup semantics beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (3D printer) plus the scope of data returned (hardware details, maintenance schedule, print queue). 'by ID' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_printers, but it never names the alternative explicitly.
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 only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it already has a printer ID and needs one printer's details rather than the list. No when-not conditions, prerequisites, or sibling alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.