Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

first_layer_status

Read-only

Retrieve the live status of a first-layer print monitor, including captured snapshots once monitoring finishes and any printer fault that halted the print.

Instructions

Check the status of a first-layer monitor.

        Returns the current monitoring state, including any captured snapshots
        once monitoring is complete.  A fault the printer has stopped for
        rides this result as ``printer_fault`` (as it rides every tool
        result while Kiln's watchdog sees it standing); the monitor's own
        fields describe the first layer, not the machine's fault state.

        Args:
            monitor_id: The monitor ID returned by ``start_monitored_print``.

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": {
      "monitor_id": "<monitor_id>"
    },
    "name": "first_layer_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monitor_idYesThe monitor ID returned by ``start_monitored_print``.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / monitor_id / description
      Added value: +"The monitor ID returned by ``start_monitored_print``."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, closed-world read, so the bar is lower, and the description does add genuinely non-obvious context: snapshots appear only once monitoring completes, and a stopped-printer fault surfaces as a printer_fault field rather than in the monitor's own fields. However, it never states whether the tool blocks, what state values exist (running vs. complete), or whether repeated calls are expected, which is the operational behavior an agent most needs.

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 is front-loaded in one line, followed by return semantics. The printer_fault paragraph is wordy and stylistically odd ("as it rides every tool result while Kiln's watchdog sees it standing"), and the Args block duplicates the schema description, but nothing is misleading or structurally confusing.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and full read-only annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns, when snapshots appear, and the fault-signal caveat. The main gap is the absence of any enumeration of monitoring states, which the missing output schema leaves entirely to prose.

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 single parameter is already documented there; the description merely restates the schema text verbatim ("The monitor ID returned by start_monitored_print"). No added meaning such as format, lifetime, or whether an ID can be reused after completion.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Check the status of a first-layer monitor") and the Args reference to start_monitored_print ties it to the producing sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the broader monitoring siblings like watch_print_status or monitor_print, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 is only implied: the monitor_id must come from start_monitored_print, which tells the agent this is the follow-up call after starting a monitor. There is no statement of when to call it versus watch_print_status or kiln_monitor_snapshot, no polling cadence guidance, and no note about when the result is final.

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