Start queued print jobs on available Bambu Lab printers once their plates are confirmed clear; set dry_run to preview assignment and rejection reasons.
Start queued jobs on free printers (plate must be confirmed clear). dry_run=true only reports which printer would take each job and why others are rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | ||
| max_starts | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two useful behaviors: the plate-clear precondition and the reporting-only semantics of dry_run. However, it says nothing about the mutating effect (actual print starts), reversibility, or any permission requirements, leaving significant gaps for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Two sentences, no waste, with the action and scope front-loaded and the dry_run detail following. Every clause earns its place.
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?
Covers purpose, precondition, and dry_run for a tool with no output schema. But with no annotations and no return description, it omits max_starts behavior and the concrete effect of dispatch, leaving it only minimally sufficient for a mutating tool.
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. It explains dry_run semantics well (preview of printer assignment and rejection reasons), but max_starts is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
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 and resource ('Start queued jobs on free printers') with a clear scope that distinguishes it from start_print (single print) and queue_add (enqueue only). The parenthetical precondition further sharpens the meaning.
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?
Gives clear context: this is the dispatch step, requires the plate to be confirmed clear, and offers dry_run as a preview. It does not name explicit alternatives (e.g., start_print) or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.