Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

delete_file

Destructive

Permanently remove a G-code file from a 3D printer's storage using its file path; deletion is irreversible, so verify before deleting.

Instructions

Delete a G-code file from the printer's storage.

Args:
    file_path: Path of the file as shown by ``printer_files()``.

This is irreversible -- the file cannot be recovered once deleted.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "delete_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesPath of the file as shown by ``printer_files()``.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / file_path / description
      Added value: +"Path of the file as shown by ``printer_files()``."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the deletion is irreversible and the file cannot be recovered, though it does not discuss active prints, missing files, or permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the action, parameter source, and irreversibility warning. No sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, path discovery, and the key risk. It could add how missing files or in-progress prints are handled, but the essential information is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single file_path parameter is already documented. The description repeats the same path-source guidance without adding format, validation, or edge-case semantics beyond the schema.

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 description uses a specific verb and resource: deleting a G-code file from the printer's storage. That scope distinguishes it from broader file or model deletion tools in the sibling list.

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?

It tells the agent to obtain the path via printer_files(), which is useful prerequisite guidance. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as upload_file or delete_cached_model, but the deletion context is clear.

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