Skip to main content
Glama
codeofaxel

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

clear_printer_error

Clear a latched error on the PRINTER so it will accept prints again.

Instructions

Clear a latched error on the PRINTER so it will accept prints again.

Different from ``clear_emergency_stop``, which releases Kiln's own safety
latch.  This one acknowledges an error the FIRMWARE is holding — the state
the machine itself reports — after which pre-flight checks pass again.

Reach for it when ``printer_status`` reports ``error`` and the printer's
own screen looks fine.  That combination is not a Kiln bug; the firmware
really is still reporting the fault, and on some machines dismissing the
on-screen message clears the notification without clearing the state.
Before this existed there was no way out of that from Kiln at all — only a
power cycle — so one bad print locked the machine out of every later one.

What it does NOT do is fix the cause.  A printer that halted for a real
fault will halt again the moment it retries, which is the honest outcome:
this reconciles Kiln with the machine, it does not overrule the machine.
Nothing is cleared while a print is running.

:param printer_name: Target printer.  Omit for the default printer.
:returns: Whether the acknowledgement was sent, plus the printer state
    read back afterwards so the caller can see whether it took.

See also: ``printer_status()``, ``preflight_check()``, ``emergency_stop()``.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
printer_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / printer_name / default
      Removed value: -null
  2. Addedv1.3.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the tool acknowledges firmware state rather than fixing a fault, that the machine will re-halt on a genuine fault, that it is a no-op during an active print, and what the response contains (whether the acknowledgement was sent plus the read-back state). That is exactly the kind of context annotations would otherwise supply.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition and the sibling distinction, then the trigger condition, then the caveats. The paragraph about how the problem predates this tool ('only a power cycle') is interesting background but the most expendable sentence in the definition.

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?

Covers purpose, when to use, distinction from the emergency-stop sibling, what it does not fix, the during-print restriction, and the return value — everything needed to call it correctly, including the 'see also' pointers to the surrounding workflow tools.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no title-level explanation, but the description adds the key semantics: it targets a printer and may be omitted to use the default. With only one optional string parameter this is sufficient, though it doesn't say whether the name must match a registered printer exactly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('clear a latched error on the PRINTER') and immediately names the sibling it is frequently confused with, clear_emergency_stop. An agent can distinguish it from that tool 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('when printer_status reports error and the printer's own screen looks fine'), an explicit exclusion (not the Kiln safety latch — use clear_emergency_stop), and a runtime precondition ('nothing is cleared while a print is running'). Also points to preflight_check and printer_status as the surrounding workflow.

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