Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

estimate_structural_load

Read-only

Estimate a safe load for a cantilevered 3D-printed section from material, cross-section, length, and layer load direction, including strength, sag, and self-weight checks.

Instructions

Estimate safe structural load for a cantilevered section.

        The figure is Kiln Pro's, worked
        out for this one part -- strength, sag and the arm's own weight,
        for any length of arm and size of section; below Pro the answer
        says the load was not checked.  A part whose arm cannot hold its
        own weight gets no figure: ``load_checked`` is false and
        ``message`` says why.  When the figure cannot be had (offline,
        signed out, no answer) the answer says why and that the part is
        unchecked.

        Args:
            material: Material ID (e.g. "petg", "nylon", "polycarbonate").
            cross_section_mm2: Effective load-bearing cross section in mm^2.
            cantilever_length_mm: Cantilever length in mm.
            load_across_layers: True when the load pulls the layer
                interfaces apart (load along the build/Z direction —
                the WEAK direction for FDM, so the figure is lower).
                False when the load acts within the layer planes
                (e.g. a bracket printed lying flat — the strong
                direction). If unsure, leave True: it is the
                conservative default.

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": {
      "material": "<material>",
      "cross_section_mm2": "<cross_section_mm2>",
      "cantilever_length_mm": "<cantilever_length_mm>"
    },
    "name": "estimate_structural_load"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialYesMaterial ID (e.g. "petg", "nylon", "polycarbonate").
cross_section_mm2YesEffective load-bearing cross section in mm^2.
load_across_layersNoTrue when the load pulls the layer interfaces apart (load along the build/Z direction — the WEAK direction for FDM, so the figure is lower). False when the load acts within the layer planes (e.g. a bracket printed lying flat — the strong direction). If unsure, leave True: it is the conservative default. Default: true.
cantilever_length_mmYesCantilever length in mm.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / cantilever_length_mm / description
      Added value: +"Cantilever length in mm."
    • addedInput schema / properties / cross_section_mm2 / description
      Added value: +"Effective load-bearing cross section in mm^2."
    • changedInput schema / properties / load_across_layers / description
      Previous value: -"Default: true."New value: +"True when the load pulls the layer interfaces apart (load along the build/Z direction — the WEAK direction for FDM, so the figure is lower). False when the load acts within the layer planes (e.g. a bracket printed lying flat — the strong direction). If unsure, leave True: it is the conservative default. Default: true."
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Added value: +"Material ID (e.g. \"petg\", \"nylon\", \"polycarbonate\")."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / load_across_layers / default
      Removed value: -true
    • addedInput schema / properties / load_across_layers / description
      Added value: +"Default: true."
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses tier gating (below Pro the load is not checked), the degraded-but-successful outcome (load_checked false plus a message when the arm cannot hold its own weight), and the offline/signed-out/no-answer path. Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, so this adds genuine behavioral context; it only omits what the numeric figure or units look like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the purpose, but the prose is convoluted ('The figure is Kiln Pro's, worked out for this one part') and the Args section duplicates schema text, costing space without adding meaning.

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 return-value duties and does so: it names load_checked and message and explains when each appears, plus the tier and offline failure paths. For a four-parameter read-only estimate this is nearly complete; only output units/magnitude are unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the Args block largely restates the schema property descriptions verbatim, including the weak/strong direction guidance for load_across_layers. The one piece of added value is the conservative-default framing, already present in the schema as well.

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 — 'Estimate safe structural load for a cantilevered section' — with a clear scope (strength, sag, arm self-weight). It does not differentiate from plausible siblings such as assess_load_bearing, design_for_load or analyze_structural_risks, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 context is only implied: it is for cantilevered sections and requires Kiln Pro to yield a figure. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not rules and no named alternative for the case where a full load-bearing assessment is wanted instead.

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