bambu-printer-mcp

by rowbotik

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

upload_gcode

Upload G-code content to a Bambu Lab printer to initiate a print job directly.

Instructions

Upload a G-code 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": {
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "gcode": "<gcode>"
    },
    "name": "upload_gcode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filename`	Yes	Name for the file on the printer
`gcode`	Yes	G-code content to upload
`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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action but does not mention side effects (e.g., file overwriting), authentication needs beyond parameters, or error conditions. The lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no waste, though it could be slightly more informative about the file type.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the upload process, success/failure indicators, or what happens after upload (e.g., storage on printer). This lack of completeness could confuse the agent.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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?

The description clearly states the action (Upload) and resource (G-code file) to a specific destination (Bambu Lab printer). It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'upload_file', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'upload_file' or 'print_3mf'. The description lacks context for appropriate use, such as prerequisites or when not to use it.

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