Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

generate_print_certificate

Read-only

Builds a print certificate for a 3D model file by querying print history, listing tested printers and materials, success rate, and recommended settings.

Instructions

Generate a print "birth certificate" for a 3D model.

        Queries print history for the file and builds a certificate
        containing tested printers, materials, success rate, and
        recommended settings.

        Args:
            file_path: Path to the 3D model file.

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": "generate_print_certificate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesPath to the 3D model file.

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 3D model file."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
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 and "generate" does not contradict it since the description clarifies it queries history and builds a report. What is missing is behavior at the edges: what happens when the file has no print history, whether the certificate is persisted or returned inline, and whether any auth/scope is required.

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?

The core purpose and the certificate's contents are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is efficient. The trailing Args block is redundant with the input schema and could be dropped, but it costs little.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value; it does list the certificate's fields but not its format (structured object, text, or document) or the empty-history case. For a read-only single-parameter tool this is adequate but not complete.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the description's Args block simply repeats the schema text verbatim, adding no new meaning such as accepted file types, path conventions, or whether remote/cloud paths work. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already carries the semantics.

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 description names a specific verb and resource ("Generate a print 'birth certificate' for a 3D model") and enumerates the artifact's contents: tested printers, materials, success rate, recommended settings. That is enough to distinguish it from plain history siblings like print_history or get_model_print_history, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 agent can infer it should call this when it wants a consolidated credibility summary rather than raw history rows. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative among the many history-related siblings, so the routing decision is left partly to inference.

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