Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

cutter_wear_status

Read-only

Check how worn a printer's filament-cutter blade is against the maker's replacement number using the printer ID, model, and recent fault codes.

Instructions

How worn is this machine's filament-cutter blade, against the maker's own number.

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": {
      "printer_id": "<printer_id>"
    },
    "name": "cutter_wear_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
printer_idYesThe registered printer's name, the id its blade record is kept under. Empty is refused with ``VALIDATION_ERROR``.
printer_modelNoThe printer's catalogue model, which picks the maker's replacement number. Empty, Kiln uses the model this install's config declares (never on the hosted server), else the one on the blade record. Default: "".
recent_faultsNoThe machine's recent cutter fault codes, a list of ``{"code", "at"}`` dicts, filled in by the caller's own Kiln from its event log. Omitted, Kiln reads its local event log (nothing on the hosted server).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_id / description
      Added value: +"The registered printer's name, the id its blade record is kept under.  Empty is refused with ``VALIDATION_ERROR``."
    • changedInput schema / properties / printer_model / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"The printer's catalogue model, which picks the maker's replacement number.  Empty, Kiln uses the model this install's config declares (never on the hosted server), else the one on the blade record. Default: \"\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / recent_faults / description
      Added value: +"The machine's recent cutter fault codes, a list of ``{\"code\", \"at\"}`` dicts, filled in by the caller's own Kiln from its event log.  Omitted, Kiln reads its local event log (nothing on the hosted server)."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 elsewhere. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the wear figure is benchmarked against the maker's own rated number rather than an arbitrary constant. It does not disclose what happens when no blade record exists, though the schema's printer_id entry carries the VALIDATION_ERROR detail.

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?

A single short sentence with the key qualifier (against the maker's own number) front-loaded and no filler. The rhetorical question form is slightly indirect for an agent parsing verbs, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a read-only three-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate but thin on the output side: with no output schema, an agent cannot tell whether the response is a percentage, a remaining-life estimate, or a raw counter. It conveys the comparison basis but not the return shape or behavior when the blade record is absent.

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 entries already explain the printer_model config-fallback chain and the recent_faults event-log fallback in more detail than the description does. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific resource (this machine's filament-cutter blade) and a specific measurement (wear measured against the manufacturer's rated number), which is far more useful than a bare status restatement. It stops short of naming siblings such as nozzle_wear_status or record_cutter_replacement, so an agent must infer that this is the read-side counterpart of the record tool.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the companion write tool record_cutter_replacement, and no statement of preconditions. The only usage signal is the interrogative framing, which implies a diagnostic read but leaves the agent to infer the trigger conditions.

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