Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

find_closest_filaments

Read-only

Find up to three purchasable 3D-printing filaments matching each requested color, with optional brand, finish, and material filters across different makers.

Instructions

Which filaments could I buy for this color? Call ONLY when the person asks. Up to three per color, from different makers.

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": {
      "colours": "<colours>"
    },
    "name": "find_closest_filaments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandNoKeep one maker's filaments, e.g. ``"Bambu Lab"``. Empty for every maker. Default: "".
finishNoEmpty (or ``"plain"``) for plain and matte filaments; otherwise one special finish: ``silk``, ``metallic``, ``glitter``, ``pearl``, ``translucent``, ``neon``, ``glow``, ``marble_wood``, ``color_shift`` or ``multicolor``. Default: "".
coloursYesUp to 16 hex color codes or color names.
materialNoThe print's material family, e.g. ``"PETG"`` (``"PLA"`` also keeps PLA+ and PLA-CF). Empty keeps the PLA family and the answer says so in ``material_note``; ``"any"`` looks across every material. Default: "".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / brand / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Keep one maker's filaments, e.g. ``\"Bambu Lab\"``. Empty for every maker. Default: \"\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / colours / description
      Added value: +"Up to 16 hex color codes or color names."
    • changedInput schema / properties / finish / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Empty (or ``\"plain\"``) for plain and matte filaments; otherwise one special finish: ``silk``, ``metallic``, ``glitter``, ``pearl``, ``translucent``, ``neon``, ``glow``, ``marble_wood``, ``color_shift`` or ``multicolor``. Default: \"\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"The print's material family, e.g. ``\"PETG\"`` (``\"PLA\"`` also keeps PLA+ and PLA-CF).  Empty keeps the PLA family and the answer says so in ``material_note``; ``\"any\"`` looks across every material. Default: \"\"."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior about results: 'Up to three per color, from different makers,' which tells the agent the result set is capped and diversified. It does not mention the material_note the schema references or anything about empty results.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the purpose leads before the calling constraint and result cap. The question format is slightly informal for a tool description but remains front-loaded and efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is roughly sufficient but leaves out the shape of the return (e.g., the material_note caveat mentioned in the schema) and whether matches come from the user's inventory or the broader catalog. Those gaps are minor given rich parameter documentation.

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 brand, finish, colours, and material are all documented in the schema, including the material_note behavior. The description only echoes the color concept ('for this color') and adds no semantics on brand, finish, or the 'any' material value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description frames the purpose as a user question ('Which filaments could I buy for this color?'), which conveys color-based filament matching but is not a clean verb+resource statement. It never names itself as a lookup/search over the filament catalog, and it does not distinguish itself from nearby tools like find_material_substitute, get_material_recommendation, or fleet_colour_match.

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?

'Call ONLY when the person asks' gives one explicit gating condition, which is real usage guidance. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no when-not conditions beyond that single constraint, so an agent comparing against list_materials or recommend_material gets no routing help.

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