Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

food_safety_for_printer

Read-only

Check whether a material and printer nozzle combination is food-safe for a given product type, including hard versus soft food-contact verdicts.

Instructions

Pro+ — combined material + nozzle food-safety verdict.

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>",
      "printer_id": "<printer_id>"
    },
    "name": "food_safety_for_printer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialYesFilament material slug.
printer_idYesActive printer identifier.
product_typeNoOptional generator slug (``pet_bowl``, ``pet_tag``, ``frisbee``, etc.) — drives the hard-vs-soft food-contact split.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Added value: +"Filament material slug."
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_id / description
      Added value: +"Active printer identifier."
    • addedInput schema / properties / product_type / description
      Added value: +"Optional generator slug (``pet_bowl``, ``pet_tag``, ``frisbee``, etc.) — drives the hard-vs-soft food-contact split."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things beyond that: the verdict is a *combined* material+nozzle judgment (not material-only) and it is a Pro+ tier feature, which is a real prerequisite signal. It stops short of describing what the verdict contains or whether it accounts for the hard-vs-soft food-contact split.

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 clause with zero padding and the key framing (combined, food-safety) front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description bears responsibility for telling the agent what a "verdict" looks like — pass/fail, a graded rating, hard vs soft contact classification — and it says nothing. For a tool whose entire value is the returned judgment, this leaves a substantive gap that annotations and the input schema cannot fill.

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%, including an explicit note that product_type drives the hard-vs-soft food-contact split, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only echoes "material + nozzle" and adds nothing about how printer_id's nozzle state influences the verdict or how product_type changes the outcome. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 phrase "combined material + nozzle food-safety verdict" identifies the resource (a food-safety verdict) and the two inputs it combines, so the agent can guess it evaluates a material against a specific printer's nozzle. But there is no verb ("check", "evaluate", "get verdict") and no differentiation from adjacent safety tools in the sibling list such as check_skin_contact_suitability, check_chemical_resistance, or may_i_print. Purpose is inferable but not sharply stated.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named. The only contextual hint is the "Pro+" prefix, which implies a paid-tier prerequisite, but that is a gating note rather than usage guidance. An agent has to infer the calling condition entirely from the name.

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