Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

check_skin_contact_suitability

Read-only

Checks whether a printed material suits skin contact and ranks lower-risk materials for a specific use, with cited, tier-gated guidance.

Instructions

Is a printed material OK against skin, and which materials are lower-risk for a use? -- honest, cited, tier-gated.

Free door, tiered answer — Free: Flags — always free · Pro: Flags · Business: Sell-ready remediation steps · Enterprise: + Market compliance checks (EU · UK · US · Canada).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_skin_contact_suitability"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
useNoWhat the part is for -- e.g. "watch band", "tool grip", "ring worn daily", "earbud shell", "mouthpiece" (the last is refused + referred). Alone, ranks lower-risk materials for it. Default: "".
exposureNoHow it touches skin -- e.g. "tool grip" / "stylus" (incidental), "watch band" / "ring" / "earbud shell" (prolonged), "mouthpiece" / "in-ear tip" (mucosal), "implant" / "piercing" (out of scope). Blank takes ``use`` when given, else the more cautious "prolonged". Default: "".
materialNoPrinted material -- e.g. "PLA", "PETG", "TPU", "ABS", "ASA", "PC", "Nylon", "PP", a fiber-filled grade ("CF-Nylon"), "wood-fill", "metal-fill", or "PEEK". Optional when ``use`` is given. Default: "".
show_mathNoSurface source-free engineering detail (public standards, provenance class, confidence) in the remediation block. Off by default. Default: false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / exposure / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"How it touches skin -- e.g. \"tool grip\" / \"stylus\" (incidental), \"watch band\" / \"ring\" / \"earbud shell\" (prolonged), \"mouthpiece\" / \"in-ear tip\" (mucosal), \"implant\" / \"piercing\" (out of scope). Blank takes ``use`` when given, else the more cautious \"prolonged\". Default: \"\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Printed material -- e.g. \"PLA\", \"PETG\", \"TPU\", \"ABS\", \"ASA\", \"PC\", \"Nylon\", \"PP\", a fiber-filled grade (\"CF-Nylon\"), \"wood-fill\", \"metal-fill\", or \"PEEK\". Optional when ``use`` is given. Default: \"\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / show_math / description
      Previous value: -"Default: false."New value: +"Surface source-free engineering detail (public standards, provenance class, confidence) in the remediation block. Off by default. Default: false."
    • changedInput schema / properties / use / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"What the part is for -- e.g. \"watch band\", \"tool grip\", \"ring worn daily\", \"earbud shell\", \"mouthpiece\" (the last is refused + referred). Alone, ranks lower-risk materials for it. Default: \"\"."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that results are tier-gated, with different output depth at Free, Pro, Business, and Enterprise levels. It does not mention auth beyond tiering or explain output structure in detail.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and clear, and the tier breakdown is useful. However, the second paragraph contains promotional wording and redundancy, such as repeating 'Flags' for Free and Pro, and 'honest, cited' adds little operational value.

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 read-only advisory tool with four optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key tiered behavior. It gives a high-level sense of output differences by tier, though it could say more about what a 'flag' or ranking actually contains.

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 schema itself provides detailed semantics for use, exposure, material, and show_math. The description does not add further parameter meaning beyond what the schema already explains, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool checks whether a printed material is suitable for skin contact and ranks lower-risk materials for a given use. It uses a specific question form and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like check_skin_contact_declaration, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The question framing implies the usage context: evaluating skin-contact suitability and finding lower-risk materials. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools such as check_skin_contact_declaration or record_skin_contact_outcome.

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