Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

check_multi_material_pairing

Read-only

Check whether two 3D-printing materials can be co-printed in dual extrusion, returning compatibility, adhesion quality, temperature notes, and soluble support guidance.

Instructions

Check if two materials can be co-printed in dual extrusion.

        Returns compatibility (yes/no), interface adhesion quality,
        notes on temperature management, and soluble support dissolution
        instructions when applicable.

        Use this when a user asks "can I print PLA with TPU?" or
        "what support material works with ABS?" or planning any
        multi-material / dual-extrusion print.

        Args:
            material_a: First material (e.g. "pla", "abs").
            material_b: Second material (e.g. "tpu", "hips", "pva").

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_a": "<material_a>",
      "material_b": "<material_b>"
    },
    "name": "check_multi_material_pairing"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
material_aYesFirst material (e.g. "pla", "abs").
material_bYesSecond material (e.g. "tpu", "hips", "pva").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / material_a / description
      Added value: +"First material (e.g. \"pla\", \"abs\")."
    • addedInput schema / properties / material_b / description
      Added value: +"Second material (e.g. \"tpu\", \"hips\", \"pva\")."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned content (compatibility verdict, interface adhesion quality, temperature notes, soluble support dissolution instructions), which matters because there is no output schema. That is solid additive context, though it does not describe input handling (e.g. unknown or misspelled material names).

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?

Purpose, return contents, and usage examples are front-loaded and each earns its place. The trailing Args section duplicates the input schema character-for-character, which is minor dead weight rather than a structural flaw.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what it returns and when to call it, which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves minor gaps such as acceptable input casing or behavior on unrecognized materials, but nothing essential 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% and the Args block in the description restates the schema text verbatim ('First material (e.g. "pla", "abs")'), adding no new meaning. The examples hint that values are lowercase material tokens, but that is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Check if two materials can be co-printed in dual extrusion'), which is immediately distinguishable from nearby material tools like compare_material_properties or check_material_match. An agent can tell what this tool answers without opening the schema.

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?

It gives concrete triggering questions ('can I print PLA with TPU?', 'what support material works with ABS?') plus the general case of planning any multi-material/dual-extrusion print, which is strong positive guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming a specific alternative sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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