Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

check_printer_material_support

Read-only

Check whether a specific 3D printer supports a given material and return compatibility status plus any required hardware upgrades or material notes.

Instructions

Check if a printer supports one specific material.

Returns compatibility status (``"compatible"`` or ``"needs_upgrade"``),
required hardware upgrades (enclosure, hardened nozzle, dry box, etc.),
and material-specific notes for the printer.

**See also:** ``check_printer_material_compatibility`` for the same
check with design-intelligence context and alternative suggestions.

Args:
    printer_id: Printer model identifier (e.g. ``"bambu_a1"``,
        ``"ender3"``, ``"prusa_mk4"``).
    material_id: Material to check (e.g. ``"petg"``).  Required; an
        empty value is refused.

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_id": "<printer_id>",
      "material_id": "<material_id>"
    },
    "name": "check_printer_material_support"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
printer_idYesPrinter model identifier (e.g. ``"bambu_a1"``, ``"ender3"``, ``"prusa_mk4"``).
material_idYesMaterial to check (e.g. ``"petg"``). Required; an empty value is refused.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / material_id / description
      Added value: +"Material to check (e.g. ``\"petg\"``).  Required; an empty value is refused."
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_id / description
      Added value: +"Printer model identifier (e.g. ``\"bambu_a1\"``, ``\"ender3\"``, ``\"prusa_mk4\"``)."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.3.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / material_id / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • removedInput schema / properties / material_id / default
      Removed value: -null
    • addedInput schema / properties / material_id / type
      Added value: +"string"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "printer_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "printer_id",
+  "material_id"
+]
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 the return contract (status of "compatible" or "needs_upgrade", required hardware upgrades such as enclosure/hardened nozzle/dry box, and material-specific notes). With no output schema, this disclosure of result shape is genuinely valuable. It does not say whether "needs_upgrade" means the print is blocked or merely degraded.

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, and the sibling pointer follows logically. The Args block is pure duplication of the input schema, which is the only wasted text.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, result contents, and the sibling alternative. An agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the Args section reproduces the schema's parameter descriptions verbatim (including the example IDs and the "empty value is refused" note), so nothing new is added. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Check if a printer supports one specific material") and the "See also" line explicitly names the near-duplicate sibling `check_printer_material_compatibility` and how it differs. An agent can pick between the two without opening either 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 names the alternative and states the selecting condition: the sibling adds design-intelligence context and alternative suggestions. What's missing is an explicit when-not-to-use statement or a note that this is the lightweight/fast path, but the routing guidance is clear enough to act on.

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