Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

bed_level_status

Read-only

Check a 3D printer's bed leveling status and determine whether leveling is needed; optionally target a specific printer or use the default.

Instructions

Check bed leveling status and whether leveling is needed.

Args:
    printer_name: Target printer.  Omit for the default printer.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bed_level_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
printer_nameNoTarget printer. Omit for the default printer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_name / description
      Added value: +"Target printer.  Omit for the default printer."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / printer_name / default
      Removed value: -null
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds that it reports whether leveling is needed, but does not disclose return format, status values, or permissions beyond what annotations provide.

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 description is front-loaded and wastes no words. The Args block duplicates the schema, but it is small and does not obscure the purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-optional-parameter read-only status tool with annotations, this is nearly complete. It names the two outputs conceptually but does not explain possible status values; without an output schema that is a minor gap.

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%, and the description repeats the schema's printer_name meaning, including the default behavior when omitted. It adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 description names the resource (bed leveling status) and the decision it supports (whether leveling is needed), so the action is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from trigger_bed_level or get_bed_mesh, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It implies the pre-leveling check use case by asking whether leveling is needed, but gives no explicit when-to-use instructions. An agent must infer when to use this versus trigger_bed_level for actually starting leveling.

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