Generate a reviewable Creality Print command without executing it. Define the model, nozzle, material, and process parameters to inspect before running.
Create a local, reviewable Creality Print command without running it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | ||
| nozzle | Yes | ||
| process | Yes | ||
| material | Yes | ||
| overrides | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: this tool creates a local, reviewable command and does not execute it. It does not mention side effects, files created, or auth needs, but the core safety-relevant behavior is clearly stated.
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?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, the scope, and the non-execution caveat efficiently, which is ideal given the sparse surrounding metadata.
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?
The description is minimally adequate: the output schema can cover return values, and the purpose is clear, but the absence of any parameter explanation and alternative routing leaves real gaps. An agent could call it correctly with domain knowledge, but the description alone does not fully equip it.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for bare parameter names. It does not explain model, nozzle, material, process, or overrides beyond the domain context of slicing, leaving the agent to guess the expected formats and semantics.
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 names a precise action and resource: create a Creality Print command, with explicit qualifiers: local, reviewable, and not run. That immediately distinguishes slice_plan from sibling tools such as pause_print or set_temperature, which act on live printer state.
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?
The phrase 'without running it' implies use for review or planning before execution, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. Guidance is left mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.