Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

diagnose_print_failure_live

Read-only

Diagnose a 3D print failure in real time using live printer state and model geometry, returning a ranked list of causes with actionable fixes.

Instructions

Diagnose a print failure using live printer state + model geometry.

        Unlike ``analyze_print_failure`` (which requires a job_id and
        analyzes historical data), this tool works in real-time by
        reading the current printer state and optionally analyzing
        the model that was being printed.

        Combines printer temperature deltas, bed adhesion analysis,
        overhang geometry, material properties, and printer intelligence
        to produce a ranked diagnosis with actionable fixes.

        Args:
            printer_name: Printer to diagnose.  Omit for the default printer.
            model_path: Path to the model file that was being printed.
                Enables geometry-based diagnosis (adhesion, overhangs).
            material: Filament material (e.g. ``"ABS"``, ``"PLA"``).
            printer_id: Printer model ID (e.g. ``"bambu_a1"``).
                Enables printer-specific intelligence lookup.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "diagnose_print_failure_live"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialNoFilament material (e.g. ``"ABS"``, ``"PLA"``).
model_pathNoPath to the model file that was being printed. Enables geometry-based diagnosis (adhesion, overhangs).
printer_idNoPrinter model ID (e.g. ``"bambu_a1"``). Enables printer-specific intelligence lookup.
printer_nameNoPrinter to diagnose. Omit for the default printer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Added value: +"Filament material (e.g. ``\"ABS\"``, ``\"PLA\"``)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / model_path / description
      Added value: +"Path to the model file that was being printed. Enables geometry-based diagnosis (adhesion, overhangs)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_id / description
      Added value: +"Printer model ID (e.g. ``\"bambu_a1\"``). Enables printer-specific intelligence lookup."
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_name / description
      Added value: +"Printer to diagnose.  Omit for the default printer."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.5.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / material / default
      Removed value: -null
    • removedInput schema / properties / model_path / default
      Removed value: -null
    • removedInput schema / properties / printer_id / default
      Removed value: -null
    • removedInput schema / properties / printer_name / default
      Removed value: -null
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict that. Beyond annotations it discloses what inputs are combined (temperature deltas, bed adhesion, overhang geometry, material properties, printer intelligence) and what the response looks like ('ranked diagnosis with actionable fixes'), which is genuine added context. It stops short of stating whether optional inputs change confidence or degrade the diagnosis when missing.

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 opening sentences are front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling contrast, which is the right ordering. The trailing Args block re-lists parameters verbatim from the schema, which is redundant bulk, but overall the description remains readable and free of padding elsewhere.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so briefly ('ranked diagnosis with actionable fixes'). All parameters are optional and it explains what enabling model_path or printer_id unlocks. Missing is any mention of failure modes or what happens when live printer state is unavailable, which matters for a real-time diagnostic tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The Args block largely restates those descriptions, and 'Omit for the default printer' duplicates the schema text rather than adding format or validation detail. Baseline 3 applies where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Diagnose a print failure') plus the distinguishing mechanism ('using live printer state + model geometry'). It names the nearest sibling, analyze_print_failure, and explains the exact difference (job_id vs real-time), so an agent can pick between them without reading the schemas.

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 an explicit when-to-use/when-not comparison against analyze_print_failure, and notes that omitting printer_name uses the default printer. It does not differentiate from other adjacent diagnosis tools in the sibling list such as predict_print_failure, troubleshoot_print_issue, or get_print_diagnostic, so routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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