List filament spools with remaining grams and where each is loaded, and flag any spools running low. Use to monitor inventory and prevent print failures.
List spools with remaining grams and where each is loaded; flags the ones that are low.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_archived | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the name — that results include remaining grams, load location, and a low-filament flag — but says nothing about authentication needs, how archived spools are treated, or result ordering/size.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned fields and the flagging behavior packed in without waste. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what comes back at a high level, but the sole parameter is left undocumented, so an agent cannot tell how archive visibility is controlled or what the default behavior is.
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 single parameter include_archived has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it at all, leaving the agent to guess what it controls. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema property name.
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?
Specific verb + resource ('List spools') plus the payload it returns (remaining grams, loading location) and a distinguishing behavior (low-filament flagging). It is clearly separable from spool_add/spool_update/spool_assign/check_filament through the verb alone, but it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the inventory-read call used before assigning or replacing filament, but the description states no when-to-use condition, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as check_filament or spool_assign.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.