Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

annotate_print

Destructive

Add notes to a completed 3D print record to capture quality observations or issues for later review.

Instructions

Add notes to a completed print record (e.g., quality observations, issues).

Args:
    job_id: The job ID of the print to annotate.
    notes: The annotation text to attach.

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>",
      "notes": "<notes>"
    },
    "name": "annotate_print"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesYesThe annotation text to attach.
job_idYesThe job ID of the print to annotate.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / job_id / description
      Added value: +"The job ID of the print to annotate."
    • addedInput schema / properties / notes / description
      Added value: +"The annotation text to attach."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds the 'completed record' precondition, but given destructiveHint=true it never explains what is actually destroyed or at risk — e.g., whether new notes overwrite existing ones, whether the action is reversible, or what permissions are required.

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?

The opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient, describing purpose in one line. The trailing 'Args:' block duplicates the input schema and is the only wasted content, so it falls short of ideal but is far from bloated.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose and both inputs adequately. However, the destructiveHint=true annotation leaves the overwrite/irreversibility question unanswered, which is the one piece of behavior an agent most needs before calling it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The 'Args:' section merely repeats the schema text verbatim and adds no new meaning such as format, length limits, or whether notes are appended versus replaced.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Add notes to a completed print record') plus a scope qualifier ('completed') that separates it from the annotate_* siblings targeting design/feature branches and decoration presets. The parenthetical examples ('quality observations, issues') further pin down what kinds of notes belong here.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The word 'completed' implies the print must already be finished, which is genuine usage context, but the description never says when to use this versus alternatives like add_mesh_comment or save_agent_note, and gives no exclusions or preconditions explicitly.

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