bambu-printer-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

reread_ams_rfid

Re-read the RFID tag on a specific AMS slot to update filament information. Use only when the printer is idle and unloaded.

Instructions

Trigger a Bambu AMS RFID re-read for one AMS slot. This can move AMS filament; use only when the printer is idle and unloaded.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ams_id": "<ams_id>",
      "slot_id": "<slot_id>"
    },
    "name": "reread_ams_rfid"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ams_id`	Yes	AMS unit index from 0 to 3
`slot_id`	Yes	Slot index within that AMS, from 0 to 3
`host`	No	Hostname or IP of the printer (default: value from env)
`bambu_serial`	No	Serial number (default: value from env)
`bambu_token`	No	Access token (default: value from env)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Jun 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'can move AMS filament,' which is a critical behavioral trait beyond a simple read. This warns the agent about physical movement, aiding safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds crucial usage condition. No redundant words; every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the primary action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the essential purpose and a key safety condition. It lacks details on return value or what happens after triggering, but such tools often act as fire-and-forget commands, making the description sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters described clearly. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states verb ('Trigger a ... re-read') and specific resource ('one AMS slot'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_printer_filaments or set_ams_drying by focusing on RFID re-reading, and includes the notable side effect of moving filament.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states condition: 'use only when the printer is idle and unloaded.' This provides clear guidance on when to invoke. No explicit alternatives mentioned, but the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.