Skip to main content
Glama

design_improvement_plan

Generate a structural improvement plan for a design, combining risk analysis, reinforcement recommendations, load analysis, and an overall score.

Instructions

Generate a complete structural improvement plan for a design.

        The **full design reasoning pipeline** — combines risk analysis,
        reinforcement recommendations, and load analysis into one actionable
        report with an overall structural score (0-100, A-F grade).

        This is the tool that makes Kiln a **design advisor**, not just a
        geometry validator. It answers: "This bracket needs a gusset at the
        load point" — not just "the part has thin walls."

        The plan includes:
        1. **Risks**: all structural weak points with locations and severity
        2. **Reinforcements**: specific fixes with estimated strength gains
        3. **Load analysis**: how the part handles forces, best print orientation
        4. **Score**: overall structural grade with summary

        :param file_path: Path to the STL file.
        :param min_cross_section_mm2: Minimum safe cross-section area.
        :param sharp_angle_threshold_deg: Angle for sharp edge detection.
        :returns: Complete improvement plan as dict.
        

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes
min_cross_section_mm2No
sharp_angle_threshold_degNo
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description clearly states the tool generates a report (read operation) with no side effects. It details the behavioral traits: combines risk analysis, reinforcements, load analysis, and produces a score. This fully discloses the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear outline of the plan components and a parameter list. It is slightly verbose with the docstring-style param descriptions, but each sentence adds value. It could be more concise by removing the redundant 'full design reasoning pipeline' phrasing.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value as 'Complete improvement plan as dict' and lists the main components (risks, reinforcements, load analysis, score). It provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool produces and how it fits into a design workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents each parameter: 'file_path: Path to the STL file', 'min_cross_section_mm2: Minimum safe cross-section area', 'sharp_angle_threshold_deg: Angle for sharp edge detection.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's title fields.

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 clearly states the tool generates a 'complete structural improvement plan' and lists specific components (risks, reinforcements, load analysis, score). It distinguishes the tool as a 'design advisor' versus a 'geometry validator,' differentiating it from sibling tools like 'analyze_structural_risks' and 'assess_load_bearing'.

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?

The description explains when to use this tool: for a comprehensive improvement plan that answers specific design questions (e.g., 'this bracket needs a gusset'). It implies it's for after basic validation. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where simpler analysis tools suffice, nor does it list alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/codeofaxel/kiln'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server