Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

fingerprint_model

Read-only

Compute a geometric fingerprint from an STL file to capture hash, dimensions, area, volume, overhang, complexity, and similarity signatures for matching and print-history workflows.

Instructions

Compute a geometric fingerprint for a 3D model file.

        Reads the STL file and produces a fingerprint containing: SHA-256
        file hash, triangle/vertex counts, bounding box, surface area,
        volume, overhang ratio, complexity score, and TWO geometric
        signatures for similarity matching.

        ``geometric_signature_v2`` is the one to carry into
        ``record_print_dna`` / ``predict_print_settings`` /
        ``find_similar_prints`` / ``contribute_community_print``: it
        tells this design apart from a different one that happens to
        share the older ``geometric_signature``.  Pass both — the
        older key is what joins this print to history recorded before
        v2 existed.

        Args:
            file_path: Path to the STL file to fingerprint.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "fingerprint_model"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesPath to the STL file to fingerprint.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / file_path / description
      Added value: +"Path to the STL file to fingerprint."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context by disclosing the full fingerprint payload and the v2-vs-legacy signature compatibility rule. It does not mention failure behavior for missing/non-STL files or cost of computing on large meshes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and output list, then the actionable signature-selection advice. The trailing Args block is pure duplication of the input schema and is the one portion that does not earn its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating exactly what the fingerprint contains, which is what an agent needs to plan downstream calls. Combined with annotations covering safety and 100% schema coverage on the lone parameter, nothing essential is missing.

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 single parameter is fully documented there; the description's 'Args: file_path: Path to the STL file to fingerprint' restates the schema verbatim. The only added nuance is that the file must be an STL, which the schema already implies, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Compute a geometric fingerprint for a 3D model file') and immediately scopes it to reading an STL. The enumeration of produced fields (hash, counts, bounding box, area, volume, overhang ratio, complexity, two signatures) makes it unmistakable versus siblings like analyze_model_geometry or fingerprint_feature.

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 downstream routing guidance explicitly: the v2 signature is the one to carry into record_print_dna / predict_print_settings / find_similar_prints / contribute_community_print, and both keys should be passed because the older one joins historical records. It lacks explicit 'do not use this for X, use Y instead' contrast against the many other geometry/analysis tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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