Skip to main content
Glama

check_material_match

Compare the print file's required material against Kiln's recorded material for a printer to detect mismatches, unmatched spools, or confirmed matches before starting a job.

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, do not tell the user
the material is confirmed.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
printer_nameNo
expected_materialYes
Install Server

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description discloses behavior such as the record vs. sensor distinction, the three possible match values, and guidance on the 'sensed' field.

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 description is somewhat verbose with the explanatory paragraph about record and three answers, but remains structured and readable.

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?

Explains the output semantics (match true/false/null, sensed) giving sufficient context for a check tool, though no explicit output schema exists.

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?

Adds meaning to both parameters: expected_material is the print file requirement, printer_name is the target printer with omission resolving to the active printer.

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 description clearly states the tool checks whether the recorded material matches the print's expected material, distinguishing from sibling tools by focusing on the record vs. sensor distinction.

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?

Provides context on when to act (e.g., stop on false match, check spool on null) but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like get_material or set_material.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/codeofaxel/kiln'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server