bambu-printer-mcp

by rowbotik

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

upload_file

Upload a local file to a Bambu Lab printer, optionally starting the print job immediately.

Instructions

Upload a local file to the Bambu Lab printer

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "filename": "<filename>"
    },
    "name": "upload_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file_path`	Yes	Local path to the file to upload
`filename`	Yes	Name for the file on the printer
`print`	No	Start printing after upload (default: false)
`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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic upload action, omitting important traits like whether files are overwritten, authentication needs, error behavior, or the effect of the 'print' parameter.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single, very short sentence. While concise, it lacks structure and fails to front-load key details; more information could be added without significant bloat.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or how this tool fits with siblings like upload_gcode, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify file path usage, allowed formats, or the implications of the 'print' flag.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Description clearly states the action 'upload a local file' and target 'Bambu Lab printer'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like upload_gcode or print_3mf which may also upload files, lacking specificity on file types.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use upload_file versus alternatives like upload_gcode, nor does it mention prerequisites or context.

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