Retrieve slicing parameters and layer height settings for a specific 3D printing quality profile by numeric ID. Use it to configure print quality before slicing.
Retrieve slicing parameters and layer height configuration for a specific printing quality profile by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique numeric ID of the printing quality |
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 behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read, but the description says nothing about permissions, whether an unknown ID errors, or the safety profile of the call. For a zero-annotation tool this is a thin disclosure.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the returned data appended; nothing is wasted. It could be marginally tighter but is well-structured.
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 simple one-parameter getter with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — it even sketches the return contents. The only gap is silence on failure/permission 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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, which the schema already describes as the unique numeric ID. The description's 'by ID' phrasing adds no format or range detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('printing quality profile') and even names the fields returned (slicing parameters, layer height). The 'by ID' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling list_qualities, though it never names an 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. obtaining an ID from list_qualities), and no exclusions. The retrieval context can only be inferred from the get_/list_ sibling naming pattern.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.