Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

describe_face

Read-only

Retrieves metadata for a single semantic face on a 3D product, such as interior_bed or hole:c1, so you can identify its properties before designing, checking, or slicing a model.

Instructions

Return metadata for a single semantic face on a product.

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": {
      "product_type": "<product_type>",
      "face_name": "<face_name>"
    },
    "name": "describe_face"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
face_nameYese.g. ``"interior_bed"``; on a sketch-built design ``"side:l2"`` / ``"hole:c1"`` / ``"top"`` / ``"bottom"``.
product_typeYese.g. ``"jewelry_tray"``, or a sketch-built design's id (see ``get_product_faces``).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / face_name / description
      Added value: +"e.g. ``\"interior_bed\"``; on a sketch-built design ``\"side:l2\"`` / ``\"hole:c1\"`` / ``\"top\"`` / ``\"bottom\"``."
    • addedInput schema / properties / product_type / description
      Added value: +"e.g. ``\"jewelry_tray\"``, or a sketch-built design's id (see ``get_product_faces``)."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description adds almost nothing: it never says what 'metadata' comprises (dimensions, normals, decoration roles, emboss depth) or what happens when the face name does not exist.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding or throat-clearing. Its brevity is close to the point of under-specification, but nothing in the text itself is redundant.

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 a caller can learn what comes back, and 'metadata' is left entirely undefined. For a lookup tool whose whole value is the returned fields, this leaves the caller unable to judge whether calling it answers their question.

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 both parameters carry examples in the schema ('interior_bed', 'side:l2', 'jewelry_tray'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes no additional meaning about face_name formats or product_type coupling beyond what the schema already states.

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: 'Return metadata for a single semantic face on a product.' The word 'single' implicitly contrasts with the plural listing sibling get_product_faces, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it is for inspecting one known face rather than enumerating faces, but the description never says when to prefer it over get_product_faces, list_decoratable_faces, or get_face_emboss_depth, nor does it state that a face name must first be discovered.

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