Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

check_printer_material_compatibility

Read-only

Check whether a specific printer can print a material; returns compatibility status, required hardware upgrades, and practical notes for setup decisions.

Instructions

Check if a specific printer can handle a material.

        Returns compatibility status (compatible / needs_upgrade /
        not_compatible), any required hardware upgrades (enclosure,
        hardened nozzle, dry box), and practical notes.

        Use this when a user asks "can my Ender 3 print nylon?" or
        another specific printer/material question.

        Args:
            printer: Printer model ID (e.g. "ender3", "bambu_x1c",
                "prusa_mk4", "voron_2"). Use underscores, lowercase.
            material: Material to check (e.g. "nylon", "abs").

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": {
      "printer": "<printer>",
      "material": "<material>"
    },
    "name": "check_printer_material_compatibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
printerYesPrinter model ID (e.g. "ender3", "bambu_x1c", "prusa_mk4", "voron_2"). Use underscores, lowercase.
materialYesMaterial to check (e.g. "nylon", "abs").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Added value: +"Material to check (e.g. \"nylon\", \"abs\")."
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer / description
      Added value: +"Printer model ID (e.g. \"ender3\", \"bambu_x1c\", \"prusa_mk4\", \"voron_2\"). Use underscores, lowercase."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.3.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / material / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • removedInput schema / properties / material / default
      Removed value: -null
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / type
      Added value: +"string"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "printer"
-]New value: +[
+  "printer",
+  "material"
+]
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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 goes beyond them by enumerating the return payload (compatible / needs_upgrade / not_compatible, required upgrades like enclosure, hardened nozzle, dry box, plus practical notes), which matters because there is no output schema. What it omits is the scope of the underlying knowledge base, relevant given openWorldHint=false.

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 and return values are front-loaded in the opening lines, and the example question makes the intent concrete quickly. The Args block duplicates the schema descriptions word for word, which is mild waste but does not obscure the key content.

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

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read tool, the caller has everything needed: both parameters documented, return values spelled out, and safety covered by annotations. The gap is disambiguation — with a large sibling set containing check_printer_material_support, check_material_match, and check_nozzle_capacity_for_print, the definition never says which one to prefer.

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 section restates the schema text verbatim (printer model ID with examples, lowercase underscores; material examples), adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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 description states a specific verb and resource ("Check if a specific printer can handle a material") and names the three-part result, so the operation is unmistakable. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-identical siblings such as check_printer_material_support or check_material_match, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 a concrete trigger condition with a worked user-question example ("can my Ender 3 print nylon?"), which is clear guidance on when to call. There are no when-not conditions and no mention of the sibling tools that overlap with this capability, leaving the ambiguous cases unaddressed.

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