Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

fleet_colour_match

Read-only

Match up to 16 hex colours against registered printers' loaded spools and identify which machine to print on, filtering by material and reporting unregistered or ignored inputs.

Instructions

Which of my printers already has each of these colours loaded, and which one to print on (Business).

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": "fleet_colour_match"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coloursYesUp to 16 hex colour codes. Anything that is not a colour code is listed under ``ignored``.
materialNoThe print's material, e.g. ``"PETG"``. A spool on record of a clearly different plastic is not counted as owned for this print, and it is kept on ``plan`` so a yes to its offer asks ``find_closest_filaments`` within it. Loaded spools are matched by colour, the way the planner matches a colour, and each names its own material. Default: "".
printer_namesNoWhich machines. Omit for every registered machine (each physical machine once). A name that is not registered is listed under ``not_registered`` and not read.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / colours / description
      Added value: +"Up to 16 hex colour codes.  Anything that is not a colour code is listed under ``ignored``."
    • changedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"The print's material, e.g. ``\"PETG\"``.  A spool on record of a clearly different plastic is not counted as owned for this print, and it is kept on ``plan`` so a yes to its offer asks ``find_closest_filaments`` within it.  Loaded spools are matched by colour, the way the planner matches a colour, and each names its own material. Default: \"\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_names / description
      Added value: +"Which machines.  Omit for every registered machine (each physical machine once).  A name that is not registered is listed under ``not_registered`` and not read."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 only the "(Business)" tier note; it does not mention that non-colour entries land in `ignored`, unregistered names in `not_registered`, or the follow-up `find_closest_filaments` offer — all of which the schema text carries but the prose does not reinforce.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding and the colour-matching intent front-loaded. Its terseness is the issue rather than verbosity — the question phrasing and unexplained "(Business)" tag cost a little clarity.

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 3-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core intent adequately. It stops short of describing the result shape (owned vs. plan vs. ignored vs. not_registered) and the Business-tier gate, leaving the agent to reconstruct the outcome structure from parameter text alone.

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 the parameters (colours, material, printer_names) are already documented with meaningful detail, including the 16-code cap and the `ignored`/`not_registered` behaviour. The description adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Which of my printers already has each of these colours loaded, and which one to print on" conveys the resource (printer fleet + loaded colours) but in question form without a clear verb, and the trailing "(Business)" adds a tier label rather than scope. A reader can infer it matches a colour list against fleet spools, but it is not stated as an action and no sibling (e.g. find_printers_with_material, check_material_match, get_fleet_material_summary) is named to disambiguate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite several close siblings. "(Business)" hints at a tier prerequisite but is not explained, and nothing says when to prefer this over check_material_match or find_printers_with_material.

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