Skip to main content
Glama
codeofaxel

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python

estimate_print_cost_from_mesh

Calculates material, support, adhesion, and electricity costs directly from 3D mesh geometry. Provides a cost breakdown and recommendations to reduce expenses without requiring G-code or slicing.

Instructions

Estimate total print cost from a 3D model file.

        Calculates material, support, adhesion, and electricity costs directly
        from mesh geometry — no G-code or slicing required. Includes a detailed
        cost breakdown and actionable recommendations to reduce cost.

        Supported materials: pla, pla+, petg, abs, tpu, asa, nylon, pc,
        cf-pla, silk-pla, hips, pva, pp, peek.

        Args:
            file_path: Path to mesh file (.stl, .obj, or .3mf).
            material: Material type (default "pla").
            infill_percent: Interior fill percentage 0-100 (default 20).
            wall_layers: Number of perimeter shells (default 3).
            layer_height_mm: Layer height in mm (default 0.2).
            nozzle_mm: Nozzle diameter in mm (default 0.4).
            include_supports: Estimate support material cost (default False).
            support_density: Support infill percentage (default 15).
            adhesion_type: Bed adhesion type: "none", "brim", or "raft".
            electricity_rate: Electricity cost in $/kWh (default 0.12).
            printer_wattage: Printer power consumption in watts (default 200).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialNopla
file_pathYes
nozzle_mmNo
wall_layersNo
adhesion_typeNonone
infill_percentNo
layer_height_mmNo
printer_wattageNo
support_densityNo
electricity_rateNo
include_supportsNo

Tool Definition Quality

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool uses mesh geometry, calculates material/support/adhesion/electricity costs, and returns a breakdown with recommendations. It does not mention destructive behavior, which is appropriate for a read-only estimation. However, it lacks details on potential side effects or dependencies, but is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise and well-structured: an initial summary sentence, followed by a paragraph on what the tool calculates, then a bulleted list of all arguments with defaults and units. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses whitespace effectively for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides comprehensive context: what the tool does, how it works, what costs are included, supported materials, and detailed parameter explanations. It mentions the output includes a cost breakdown and recommendations, which is sufficient for an estimation tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section provides detailed explanations for each parameter, including defaults and units (e.g., 'Material type (default "pla")', 'Interior fill percentage 0-100'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, enabling correct parameter usage.

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 estimates total print cost from a 3D model file, specifying the verb 'estimate' and the resource 'print cost from a 3D model file'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'estimate_material_cost' or 'estimate_print_time' by focusing on mesh geometry without slicing.

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 that the tool calculates costs directly from mesh geometry without needing G-code or slicing, and provides a breakdown and recommendations. It implies its use case for early cost estimation, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for cost estimation, such as slicing-based methods.

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