bambu-sentinel-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

upload_file

Transfer a local file to a Bambu Lab printer for storage or print preparation, with optional printer ID and remote path (default /cache/).

Instructions

Upload a local file to the printer (default /cache/).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "local_path": "<local_path>"
    },
    "name": "upload_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`local_path`	Yes
`printer_id`	No	Printer id; may be omitted when only one printer is configured
`remote_path`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default remote destination (/cache/<name>), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema, but it omits whether an existing file is overwritten, size or format limits, and any permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the destination default front-loaded in parentheses. Efficient, though extremely terse for a mutation tool with three parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a write/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% param coverage, the description is too sparse. It should at least state overwrite behavior and error conditions so an agent can invoke it safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the default destination path behavior relevant to remote_path, but leaves local_path (the required param) and the optional printer_id semantics largely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (upload) and resource (a local file) with a clear destination (the printer). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_printer_files, delete_printer_file, and inspect_3mf, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when-not to use it. The context (uploading files to a printer) is only implied by the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.