Slice six color bands to verify paint codes after a Bambu Studio update, confirming color mapping and slicer settings without sending jobs to a printer.
Slice six colour bands to prove the paint codes on this machine. Run after updating Bambu Studio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nozzle | No | ||
| printer | No | A1 mini |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful operational context (post-update timing, purpose of validating paint codes) but says nothing about what the test returns or how success/failure is signalled.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The wording is a little cryptic ('slice six colour bands') but nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not explain the nozzle parameter, what the six-band slice produces, or how to read the result. Annotations carry the safety profile, but the operational detail is incomplete.
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?
Two parameters (nozzle, printer) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. 'This machine' loosely hints at the printer parameter, but nozzle is entirely unexplained 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?
The description gives a verb and object ('Slice six colour bands') and a goal ('prove the paint codes'), but the tool is named self_test and the text reads like a slicing action, which blurs its identity against the sibling slice_model. It is unclear whether this is a diagnostic or an ordinary slice.
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?
'Run after updating Bambu Studio' supplies one concrete trigger condition, which is more than nothing. However there is no guidance on when NOT to use it or how it relates to slice_model / paint_model, so the agent must infer the rest.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.