Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

estimate_adaptive_time_savings

Read-only

Compare adaptive slicing plans against a uniform layer height to see projected layer count reduction, estimated time savings, and percentage improvement before printing.

Instructions

Compare adaptive plan time savings vs uniform layer height.

Shows layer count reduction, estimated time savings, and percentage
improvement.

Args:
    plan_data: Plan dict from ``generate_adaptive_slicing_plan``.
    uniform_height_mm: Reference uniform layer height for comparison
        (default 0.2mm).

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": {
      "plan_data": "<plan_data>"
    },
    "name": "estimate_adaptive_time_savings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plan_dataYesPlan dict from ``generate_adaptive_slicing_plan``.
uniform_height_mmNoReference uniform layer height for comparison (default 0.2mm). Default: 0.2.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / plan_data / description
      Added value: +"Plan dict from ``generate_adaptive_slicing_plan``."
    • changedInput schema / properties / uniform_height_mm / description
      Previous value: -"Default: 0.2."New value: +"Reference uniform layer height for comparison (default 0.2mm). Default: 0.2."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / uniform_height_mm / default
      Removed value: -0.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / uniform_height_mm / description
      Added value: +"Default: 0.2."
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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. The description adds the return content (layer count reduction, time savings, percentage improvement) and the 0.2mm default baseline, which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It says nothing about units, error behavior for malformed plan_data, or how savings are computed, so it adds only moderate context.

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?

Purpose and outputs are front-loaded in two short sentences, then parameters follow. The Args block duplicates the schema descriptions, which is mild redundancy but conventional and not bloated.

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 compensates by enumerating what the tool returns, and it traces the required nested plan_data back to its producer tool. Read-only safety is covered by annotations. Missing only minor details such as units and behavior on invalid plan input.

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 Args section largely restates the schema text verbatim ('Plan dict from generate_adaptive_slicing_plan', 'default 0.2mm'). It does not clarify the internal structure of the nested plan_data object or the units of uniform_height_mm beyond the mm suffix in the name. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 comparison verb and both resources: adaptive plan time savings versus uniform layer height. It also names the three computed outputs, so an agent can distinguish it from generate_adaptive_slicing_plan (which produces the plan) and get_adaptive_plan_summary. No sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Clear context is given: the tool is used after obtaining a plan from generate_adaptive_slicing_plan, and uniform_height_mm sets the comparison baseline. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for the estimate-vs-actual decision, so it stops at clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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