Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

compare_material_properties

Read-only

Compare two materials across a fixed safety and process field set to decide between options for a project or reprint. Get side-by-side data for material selection.

Instructions

Compare two materials using a fixed public safety/process field set.

Use this when deciding between materials for a project (e.g. PLA vs PETG
for an outdoor bracket) or when switching materials for a reprint. Deeper
engineering trade-offs are answered one question at a time by Kiln's
servers.

Args:
    material_a: First material (e.g. ``"pla"``).
    material_b: Second material (e.g. ``"petg"``).

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": {
      "material_a": "<material_a>",
      "material_b": "<material_b>"
    },
    "name": "compare_material_properties"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
material_aYesFirst material (e.g. ``"pla"``).
material_bYesSecond material (e.g. ``"petg"``).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / material_a / description
      Added value: +"First material (e.g. ``\"pla\"``)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / material_b / description
      Added value: +"Second material (e.g. ``\"petg\"``)."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the compared field set is 'fixed' and 'public', useful context about determinism and scope, but says nothing about the shape or size of the result or any rate/authorization considerations.

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 core action followed by usage triggers and the escalation note. The trailing Args section duplicates the input schema word-for-word and is the one block that does not earn its place.

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 two-parameter, read-only comparison with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, scope of the compared fields, and usage context. What is missing is minor — the specific field categories compared and how unknown material names are handled.

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% with only two string params, and the description's Args block restates the schema text verbatim (including the 'pla'/'petg' examples). No additional meaning such as accepted aliases, case sensitivity, or unknown-material handling is provided; baseline 3 applies.

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 two materials') and scopes it to 'a fixed public safety/process field set', which separates it from open-ended material-question tools. It does not name nearest siblings like get_material_properties, find_material_substitute, or check_multi_material_pairing, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

Gives two concrete when-to-use triggers — deciding between materials for a project (PLA vs PETG outdoor bracket) and switching materials for a reprint — plus a pointer that deeper engineering trade-offs go to Kiln's servers one question at a time. No explicit when-not or named alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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