Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

check_material_match

Read-only

Compare the material Kiln has on record for a printer against what a print file expects, returning match, mismatch, or no record so you can catch the wrong spool before printing.

Instructions

Check whether the material Kiln has on record matches what a print expects.

Answers about Kiln's material RECORD, which normally holds what a person
or agent typed via ``set_material`` — not a sensor reading.  Three
answers, and the third one matters: ``match: true`` (the record agrees),
``match: false`` (it disagrees — worth stopping for), and ``match: null``
(nothing is recorded for this printer, so this is neither a match nor a
mismatch and the spool needs an eye on it).  ``sensed`` says whether a
machine reported the material; when it is false, the material is on
record, not confirmed, and the answer should say so.

Args:
    expected_material: The material the print file requires.
    printer_name: Target printer.  Omit to resolve the active printer.

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": {
      "expected_material": "<expected_material>"
    },
    "name": "check_material_match"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
printer_nameNoTarget printer. Omit to resolve the active printer.
expected_materialYesThe material the print file requires.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected_material / description
      Added value: +"The material the print file requires."
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_name / description
      Added value: +"Target printer.  Omit to resolve the active printer."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / printer_name / default
      Removed value: -null
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the tri-state match result including null, and the meaning of the `sensed` flag (recorded vs machine-confirmed). That is useful behavioral disclosure, though it says nothing about concurrent state changes or how printer resolution behaves when no name is given.

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 key distinction and the three result states are front-loaded, which is the right structure. A short trailing Args section duplicates the schema verbatim and costs a few lines, and the clause 'the answer should say so' is vague, but overall length is proportionate to the tool's real ambiguity.

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

Completeness5/5

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 carries the burden of explaining return values — and it does, defining the three match states and the `sensed` flag. For a two-parameter read-only check with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it and read the result correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in structured data. The Args block in the description restates the schema text nearly verbatim ('The material the print file requires', 'Omit to resolve the active printer') and adds no new semantics such as format, casing, or alias handling.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening line gives a specific verb and resource: check whether Kiln's recorded material matches what a print expects. It further distinguishes its own scope by stating this is about Kiln's material RECORD, written via set_material, and explicitly not a sensor reading, which separates it from material-property and status tools.

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?

The description tells the agent what this check is and is not (record vs sensor), and gives practical interpretation guidance: a false is 'worth stopping for' and a null means the spool 'needs an eye on it'. It does not name alternative tools such as get_material or check_printer_material_support and when to prefer them, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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