Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

clear_printer_error

Destructive

Acknowledge and clear a latched firmware error on a 3D printer so it passes pre-flight checks and accepts 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()``.

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": "clear_printer_error"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
printer_nameNoTarget printer. Omit for the default printer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_name / description
      Added value: +"Target printer.  Omit for the default printer."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / printer_name / default
      Removed value: -null
  3. Addedv1.3.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing that the tool reconciles Kiln's state with firmware rather than fixing the underlying fault, that a genuinely faulty printer will halt again on retry, that it is a no-op during an active print, and what the return value carries (acknowledgement plus read-back state). That is exactly the kind of precondition and side-effect context annotations cannot express.

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 action and the sibling contrast, then progressively narrows to preconditions and non-guarantees. The historical aside about the pre-existing power-cycle workaround is informative but expendable, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 single-parameter state-mutation tool with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: when it applies, what it does not promise, when it is blocked, and what the response reports back. No material gap remains.

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?

With one optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'Target printer. Omit for the default printer'; the description's :param block restates it verbatim and adds no new meaning such as accepted formats or how the default is resolved. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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 opening line gives a specific verb and resource ('Clear a latched error on the PRINTER') and immediately delimits scope by contrasting with clear_emergency_stop, which releases Kiln's own latch rather than the firmware's. An agent can distinguish this from every other printer-state tool without reading 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 Guidelines5/5

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

It names the exact triggering condition ('printer_status reports error and the printer's own screen looks fine'), explains why that combination is not a Kiln bug, and routes elsewhere via 'See also: printer_status(), preflight_check(), emergency_stop()'. It also states a hard exclusion: nothing is cleared while a print is running.

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