Submit a local 3D model file (STL, OBJ, 3MF, STEP) to a cloud slicer and get an async slicing job ID for tracking print preparation.
Submit a local 3D model file (STL, OBJ, 3MF, STEP) to cloud slicer and obtain an async slicing job ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | Local filesystem path to 3D model file (.stl, .obj, .3mf, .step, .stp) | |
| printingQualityId | Yes | Printing quality profile numeric ID from list_qualities |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the async nature of the operation (returns a job ID rather than a result), that the file is read from the local filesystem, and which formats are accepted, but it says nothing about failure modes, permissions, prerequisites for printingQualityId, or the job lifecycle.
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 packs verb, resource, accepted formats, and return type with no filler whatsoever.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating the return value is an async job ID, and the schema fully covers inputs. The remaining gap is the absence of guidance on retrieving results via the paired get_slicing_status tool.
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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the format list (dropping .stp) and the local-file nature of filePath, adding only marginal meaning 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Submit a local 3D model file... to cloud slicer') and enumerates supported formats, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, name the sibling it pairs with (get_slicing_status), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 by the description's mention of obtaining an 'async slicing job ID', which suggests a follow-up poll, but the description never states when to use this tool versus alternatives or that get_slicing_status is the way to retrieve results. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.