Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

auto_detect_nozzle

Destructive

Parses raw printer payloads to detect nozzle state from Bambu, Klipper, or OctoPrint printers, enabling accurate print setup.

Instructions

Parse a raw printer payload into a NozzleState.

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": {
      "printer_id": "<printer_id>",
      "brand": "<brand>",
      "raw_payload": "<raw_payload>"
    },
    "name": "auto_detect_nozzle"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandYesOne of ``bambu``, ``klipper``, ``octoprint``.
printer_idYesStable printer identifier this nozzle state belongs to.
raw_payloadYesThe raw text or JSON the LAN fetch returned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / brand / description
      Added value: +"One of ``bambu``, ``klipper``, ``octoprint``."
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_id / description
      Added value: +"Stable printer identifier this nozzle state belongs to."
    • addedInput schema / properties / raw_payload / description
      Added value: +"The raw text or JSON the LAN fetch returned."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true (the title says it 'refresh[es] its saved record'), but the description frames the tool as a pure parse-and-transform, saying nothing about overwriting or refreshing a persisted nozzle record. Because annotations already carry the safety profile, the description still needs to explain what state is replaced and whether the previous record is recoverable — it does neither.

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 eight-word sentence, front-loaded with the action and the resource, with no filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specification given the tool's destructive nature.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should at least say what a NozzleState contains or what happens on parse failure, and it should disclose that a stored record is refreshed. For a destructive, three-required-parameter tool, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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%; all three parameters (brand with its three enumerated values, printer_id, raw_payload) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra semantics about payload format expectations or failure behaviour on malformed payloads, so it sits at the baseline.

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 ('Parse') and resource ('raw printer payload') and names the output type ('NozzleState'). It is clear enough on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from near-siblings such as get_nozzle_state, set_nozzle_state, list_nozzle_states, or nozzle_wear_status, so an agent must guess which of these to pick.

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 call this versus the neighbouring nozzle tools, nor on prerequisites such as whether a printer must already be registered or a fetch performed first. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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