Retrieve configured Phomemo printers so AI agents can select a Bluetooth thermal printer before sending Markdown cards, checklists, pictures, or checking status and managing jobs.
List configured printers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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, and it discloses nothing beyond the basic operation. It does not say whether this requires printer configuration/permissions, whether output is paginated, or how it behaves when no printers are configured.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than excessive brevity.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only nature is implied by 'List'. Still, for a tool sitting among many print-related siblings with no annotations, the description does not do enough to route the agent correctly.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the description has no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (configured printers), so the agent immediately knows the operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings such as printer_status or list_print_jobs, which the agent must infer from names alone.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus printer_status (single printer detail) or list_print_jobs (queued work). The agent is left to infer the distinction from tool names, with no stated context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.