Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

compare_design_versions

Read-only

Compare print outcomes between two design versions to identify differences before printing.

Instructions

Compare print outcomes between two versions of a design.

Needs Kiln Pro.

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": {
      "version_id_a": "<version_id_a>",
      "version_id_b": "<version_id_b>"
    },
    "name": "compare_design_versions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mesh_path_aNoOptional path to version A's mesh. With ``mesh_path_b`` also given, and a ``<mesh>.intent.json`` sidecar beside each, the result adds ``intent_diff``: how the two versions' recorded intents differ. Default: "".
mesh_path_bNoOptional path to version B's mesh. Default: "".
version_id_aYesThe first version ID ("version A").
version_id_bYesThe second version ID ("version B").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / mesh_path_a / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Optional path to version A's mesh.  With ``mesh_path_b`` also given, and a ``<mesh>.intent.json`` sidecar beside each, the result adds ``intent_diff``: how the two versions' recorded intents differ. Default: \"\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / mesh_path_b / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Optional path to version B's mesh. Default: \"\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / version_id_a / description
      Added value: +"The first version ID (\"version A\")."
    • addedInput schema / properties / version_id_b / description
      Added value: +"The second version ID (\"version B\")."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — the Kiln Pro entitlement requirement — but says nothing about what the comparison actually produces or how versions are matched. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two short sentences, action front-loaded, no filler or repetition. It is efficient but borders on under-specification, which is penalized in other dimensions rather than here.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place the return value could be described, and it only implies 'print outcomes' without saying what is compared (time, cost, success risk) or how it differs from sibling diff tools. For a read-only compare tool this leaves a real gap in what the agent can expect back.

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%, including detailed semantics for the optional mesh_path_a/mesh_path_b params and the intent_diff sidecar behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Compare print outcomes between two versions of a design'), and the 'print outcomes' scoping hints at the distinction from geometric-diff siblings. However, it never names the near-identical siblings such as diff_design_versions, compare_mesh_versions, or visual_diff_meshes, so an agent still has to guess which compare tool to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only guidance is a prerequisite ('Needs Kiln Pro'), which is useful but is a gate, not a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when this is preferable to diff_design_versions or compare_mesh_versions, and no exclusions.

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