Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

abrasive_escalation

Read-only

Escalate an abrasive-filament warning by checking the filament against a printer’s recorded nozzle before printing.

Instructions

Escalates the abrasive-filament warning by the nozzle on record.

Free door, tiered answer — Free: Warnings — always free · Pro: How long it lasts on that filament, and when to swap · Business: + Every machine’s nozzle checked against its record · Enterprise: ✓.

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": {
      "material": "<material>",
      "printer_id": "<printer_id>"
    },
    "name": "abrasive_escalation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialYesThe filament about to print (``"PLA-CF"``, ``"PETG-GF"``). Empty is refused with ``VALIDATION_ERROR``.
printer_idYesStable printer identifier whose recorded nozzle is judged. Empty is refused; a printer with no nozzle on record is judged with its nozzle material unknown.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Added value: +"The filament about to print (``\"PLA-CF\"``, ``\"PETG-GF\"``).  Empty is refused with ``VALIDATION_ERROR``."
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_id / description
      Added value: +"Stable printer identifier whose recorded nozzle is judged.  Empty is refused; a printer with no nozzle on record is judged with its nozzle material unknown."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only commercial gating (which depth of answer each plan returns), which is passed off in a marketing sloganeering block rather than explaining what the escalation actually produces or how it differs from a plain warning lookup.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The first sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the second is a compressed pricing banner ("Free door, tiered answer — Free: … · Pro: … · Business: … · Enterprise: ✓") that is hard to parse and spends most of its length on sales copy rather than tool behavior.

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?

With no output schema and a read-only tool whose whole value is the verdict it returns, the description never says what comes back (a warning, a lifespan estimate, a swap recommendation) beyond vague plan labels. For a two-parameter judgment tool this leaves the agent guessing about the result and about escalation semantics.

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 100%, so both parameters (material, printer_id) are fully documented, including the empty-value and unknown-nozzle edge cases. "By the nozzle on record" loosely ties printer_id to the recorded nozzle, but adds nothing the schema does not already say; baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Escalates the abrasive-filament warning by the nozzle on record" names a resource (abrasive-filament warning) and an action (escalate), but "escalate" is ambiguous — it reads as either raising a warning or requesting a wear verdict for a material/printer pair. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_material_warnings, nozzle_wear_status, or check_nozzle_capacity_for_print.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus the warning-lookup or nozzle-wear tools, and no preconditions (e.g. whether a prior warning must exist). The tier table describes plan entitlements, not invocation conditions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools