Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

build_generation_prompt

Read-only

Builds a design-aware 3D generation prompt by adding manufacturing constraints, printer-fit limits, and material guidance, while adapting prompt length to the selected backend.

Instructions

Build a design-aware generation prompt for original 3D creation.

        This is the best pre-generation tool for original designs. It takes
        a natural-language idea and appends manufacturing constraints,
        printer-fit limits, and material guidance so text-to-3D backends
        receive a prompt grounded in real printability constraints.

        When provider is specified, the prompt length is optimized for that
        backend. Use provider="openscad" for maximum constraint injection
        (100K chars), "meshy" for lean prompts (600 chars), or omit for
        the default limit.

        Args:
            requirements: Natural language description of the desired part.
            material: Optional material override (e.g. "petg").
            printer_model: Optional printer model ID (e.g. "bambu_a1").
            provider: Optional generation provider (e.g. "openscad", "meshy",
                "gemini"). Controls prompt length budget.

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": {
      "requirements": "<requirements>"
    },
    "name": "build_generation_prompt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialNoOptional material override (e.g. "petg").
providerNoOptional generation provider (e.g. "openscad", "meshy", "gemini"). Controls prompt length budget.
requirementsYesNatural language description of the desired part.
printer_modelNoOptional printer model ID (e.g. "bambu_a1").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Added value: +"Optional material override (e.g. \"petg\")."
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_model / description
      Added value: +"Optional printer model ID (e.g. \"bambu_a1\")."
    • addedInput schema / properties / provider / description
      Added value: +"Optional generation provider (e.g. \"openscad\", \"meshy\", \"gemini\"). Controls prompt length budget."
    • addedInput schema / properties / requirements / description
      Added value: +"Natural language description of the desired part."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / material / default
      Removed value: -null
    • removedInput schema / properties / printer_model / default
      Removed value: -null
    • removedInput schema / properties / provider / default
      Removed value: -null
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail: constraint injection behavior and per-provider prompt length budgets (100K chars for openscad, 600 for meshy). It does not describe the return shape (presumably a prompt string) or whether anything is persisted, which matters slightly since no output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then differentiation, then provider guidance, then args. The Args block largely duplicates the schema's own parameter descriptions verbatim, which is the main wasted space, but overall length is proportionate.

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 read-only, single-required-parameter prompt builder this covers purpose, constraint behavior, and provider budgets adequately. The only meaningful omission is what the caller receives back, which would help given there is no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by explaining what 'provider' actually controls (prompt length budget) with concrete magnitudes per backend. Material and printer_model are only restated from the schema without adding semantics such as what a material override changes in the prompt.

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 concrete verb and resource: builds a design-aware generation prompt for original 3D creation, and explains it appends manufacturing constraints, printer-fit limits, and material guidance. It positions itself as a pre-generation tool, but never names the adjacent siblings (improve_generation_prompt, build_parametric_prompt) so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Says 'This is the best pre-generation tool for original designs', which gives a clear usage context, and gives explicit provider selection guidance (openscad for max constraints, meshy for lean prompts, omit for default). It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. when to prefer improve_generation_prompt or build_parametric_prompt instead.

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