Track filament spools by assigning a spool to a specific printer slot or clearing it when unloaded. Use after every spool change to keep inventory accurate.
Say which spool is loaded in which printer slot (or unload it with clear=true). Do this whenever you change spools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slot | No | AMS slot 0-3 (unit 1), 4-7 (unit 2)... or 254 for the external spool | |
| clear | No | ||
| spool_id | Yes | ||
| printer_id | No |
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. It discloses the two modes (assign vs unload via clear=true), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, what happens to a previously assigned spool, or whether the change is reversible. Moderate disclosure against a high burden.
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 compact sentences, front-loading the primary action before the unload variant and the usage cadence. No wasted words, though the phrasing 'Say which spool' is slightly informal rather than imperative.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the clear flag but omits the printer_id/slot relationship and side-effect details an agent would want. Adequate but with visible gaps.
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 coverage is only 25% (only 'slot' is documented, richly so, with AMS/external slot semantics). The description compensates by explaining clear=true as an unload, but leaves spool_id (required) and printer_id unexplained, and never clarifies how printer_id relates to slot.
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: assigning (or clearing) a spool-to-printer-slot mapping. An agent can tell this sets filament/spool location. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling spool_update, which could also touch spool data, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
"Do this whenever you change spools" gives a clear triggering condition, and the parenthetical explains the unload variant. No explicit when-not guidance or naming of alternative tools (spool_update/spool_add), but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.