Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

check_material_environment

Read-only

Check if a material suits an environment and meets printing rules like food-safe, RoHS, or UV. Get warnings plus pass or fail verdicts before printing.

Instructions

Check whether a material is compatible with an environment, and optionally whether it meets the rules the part must meet.

        Args:
            material: Material ID from the design knowledge base.
            environment: Natural language environment description.
            requirements: Optional rules to check the material against
                before printing: any of ``food_safe``, ``reach``,
                ``rohs``, ``flame_retardant``, ``uv``.  The answer comes
                back under ``rule_checks``: the material's warnings
                always, and a meets / does-not-meet verdict with its
                reason where the plan includes it; when the check cannot
                be made, ``rule_checks.checked`` is false and no
                requirement is called met.

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>",
      "environment": "<environment>"
    },
    "name": "check_material_environment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialYesMaterial ID from the design knowledge base.
environmentYesNatural language environment description.
requirementsNoOptional rules to check the material against before printing: any of ``food_safe``, ``reach``, ``rohs``, ``flame_retardant``, ``uv``. The answer comes back under ``rule_checks``: the material's warnings always, and a meets / does-not-meet verdict with its reason where the plan includes it; when the check cannot be made, ``rule_checks.checked`` is false and no requirement is called met.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / environment / description
      Added value: +"Natural language environment description."
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Added value: +"Material ID from the design knowledge base."
    • addedInput schema / properties / requirements / description
      Added value: +"Optional rules to check the material against before printing: any of ``food_safe``, ``reach``, ``rohs``, ``flame_retardant``, ``uv``.  The answer comes back under ``rule_checks``: the material's warnings always, and a meets / does-not-meet verdict with its reason where the plan includes it; when the check cannot be made, ``rule_checks.checked`` is false and no requirement is called met."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / requirements
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "title": "Requirements"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 genuine behavioral detail by explaining the rule_checks return contract, including that warnings are always returned, that a verdict comes with a reason only where the plan includes it, and that checked=false means nothing is called met. Only the main compatibility verdict itself is left unspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening purpose sentence is well front-loaded, but the docstring-style Args section restates the schema descriptions almost word for word, which is redundant payload rather than added signal.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so for the rule_checks subtree, including failure semantics. It falls short only in not naming or describing the primary compatibility result field the caller will read.

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%, and the Args block largely reproduces the schema text verbatim, so it adds little meaning beyond the structured fields. The enumeration of allowed requirement values is useful but is already present in the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: check whether a material is compatible with an environment, plus an optional requirements check. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from near-siblings such as check_material_match, check_printer_material_compatibility, or get_material_warnings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'before printing' and the optional requirements list imply the usage context, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over the several material-compatibility siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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