Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

check_chemical_resistance

Read-only

Determine if a printed material part can survive exposure to a specific reagent, with cited warnings and verdicts for solvents, fuels, oils, bleach, UV, weather, and food contact.

Instructions

Will a printed part survive ? -- cited, plain-English, tier-gated.

Free door, tiered answer — Free: Warnings — always free · Pro: Warnings · Business: Verdicts — solvents, fuels, oils, bleach, UV, weather · Enterprise: + Safety-critical grade — concentrated acids, caustics, food contact.

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": {
      "material": "<material>",
      "reagent": "<reagent>"
    },
    "name": "check_chemical_resistance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reagentYesWhat it touches -- e.g. "diesel", "gasoline", "acetone", "IPA", "bleach", "vinegar", "brake fluid", "coolant", "hot water", "UV"/"outdoor", "hydrogen peroxide", "food".
materialYesPrinted material -- e.g. "PLA", "PETG", "ABS", "ASA", "Nylon", "TPU", "polycarbonate", "PP", or a filled grade like "CF-Nylon".
show_mathNoSurface source-free engineering detail (public test standard, provenance class, confidence, corroboration). Off by default; plain answer for every tier. Default: false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Added value: +"Printed material -- e.g. \"PLA\", \"PETG\", \"ABS\", \"ASA\", \"Nylon\", \"TPU\", \"polycarbonate\", \"PP\", or a filled grade like \"CF-Nylon\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / reagent / description
      Added value: +"What it touches -- e.g. \"diesel\", \"gasoline\", \"acetone\", \"IPA\", \"bleach\", \"vinegar\", \"brake fluid\", \"coolant\", \"hot water\", \"UV\"/\"outdoor\", \"hydrogen peroxide\", \"food\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / show_math / description
      Previous value: -"Default: false."New value: +"Surface source-free engineering detail (public test standard, provenance class, confidence, corroboration). Off by default; plain answer for every tier. Default: false."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: answers are cited and plain-English, and result depth is tier-gated into warnings, verdicts, or safety-critical grade. It still does not explain authentication requirements, limits, or exactly what a warning versus a verdict contains.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact tier summary. The tier line is somewhat dense and marketing-like, but the description contains no significant padding.

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 three-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the decision, citation style, and tier-dependent depth. It leaves the exact shape of warnings or verdicts vague, but the essential context for calling the tool is present.

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 schema already supplies rich material and reagent examples plus the show_math flag. The description confirms the required material/reagent pair via placeholders but adds no constraints, formats, or parameter behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 opening question names both required inputs and the exact decision being made—whether a printed material survives a reagent—so it is distinguishable from generic material-property or warning tools. It does not explicitly contrast with neighboring material tools, keeping it short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description explains what the tool answers and how tiering affects answer depth, but it does not say when to call it instead of get_material_warnings, check_material_environment, or compare_material_properties. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing guidance are provided.

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