Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

add_mesh_comment

Pin a comment to a specific location—global, point, face, edge, tile, or bounding box—on a versioned design, preset, or feature so feedback stays tied to the exact spot.

Instructions

Pin a comment to a spot on a versioned artifact.

Free door, tiered answer — Free: On the designs you keep · Pro: ✓ · Business: ✓ · 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": {
      "artifact_type": "<artifact_type>",
      "artifact_version_id": "<artifact_version_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "add_mesh_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe comment's words; empty is refused.
scopeNo``comment`` (the default), ``issue`` or ``suggestion``. Default: "comment".
anchorNoWhere on the version it is pinned: ``"global"`` (the whole version, the default), ``"point:x,y,z"`` or ``"point:x,y,z@face"`` (a spot on the surface, mm), ``"tile:u,v"`` (a spot on a preset's image tile, 0 to 1), ``"face:12,13"`` / ``"edge:5,6"`` / ``"vertex:1,2"`` (id sets), or ``"bbox:x1,y1,z1,x2,y2,z2"`` (mm). An unknown prefix or malformed numbers are refused. Default: "global".
authorNoWho wrote it. On Kiln's servers the signed-in account is always used and this is ignored; elsewhere, omitted means the caller's account if Kiln knows it, else none.
artifact_typeYesThe kind of artifact: ``design``, ``preset`` or ``feature``; any other word is refused.
artifact_version_idYesThe id of the version the comment is pinned to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / anchor / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"global\"."New value: +"Where on the version it is pinned: ``\"global\"`` (the whole version, the default), ``\"point:x,y,z\"`` or ``\"point:x,y,z@face\"`` (a spot on the surface, mm), ``\"tile:u,v\"`` (a spot on a preset's image tile, 0 to 1), ``\"face:12,13\"`` / ``\"edge:5,6\"`` / ``\"vertex:1,2\"`` (id sets), or ``\"bbox:x1,y1,z1,x2,y2,z2\"`` (mm).  An unknown prefix or malformed numbers are refused. Default: \"global\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / artifact_type / description
      Added value: +"The kind of artifact: ``design``, ``preset`` or ``feature``; any other word is refused."
    • addedInput schema / properties / artifact_version_id / description
      Added value: +"The id of the version the comment is pinned to."
    • addedInput schema / properties / author / description
      Added value: +"Who wrote it.  On Kiln's servers the signed-in account is always used and this is ignored; elsewhere, omitted means the caller's account if Kiln knows it, else none."
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Added value: +"The comment's words; empty is refused."
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"comment\"."New value: +"``comment`` (the default), ``issue`` or ``suggestion``. Default: \"comment\"."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that the comment attaches to a versioned artifact and that a tier gate applies, but says nothing about whether a new thread is created, what identifier comes back, or whether repeated identical pins deduplicate — details an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening sentence is tight and front-loaded. The second sentence is a marketing-style tier table whose meaning ('Free: On the designs you keep') is ambiguous enough that it costs the reader more than it returns, and the checkmarks carry almost no information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the tier gate but omits what the call produces (new thread vs. comment on existing thread, returned id) and any error conditions beyond those the schema already refuses. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent that must decide whether to follow up with get_comment_thread.

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 anchor syntax, scope values, author precedence and artifact_type enumeration are all fully documented in the schema itself. The description contributes only the loose notion of 'a spot on a versioned artifact', which the anchor and artifact_version_id descriptions already state far more precisely; baseline 3 applies.

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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Pin a comment') plus scope ('to a spot on a versioned artifact'), which clearly separates it from read-side siblings like list_mesh_comments and get_comment_thread. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from edit_mesh_comment or reply_to_comment, which are the nearest ambiguous alternatives.

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 statement of when to use this versus reply_to_comment (append to a thread) or edit_mesh_comment (mutate an existing one). The only usage-shaped information is the tier line, which vaguely signals that Free accounts are limited to 'designs you keep', but the phrase is too cryptic to act on as a precondition.

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