Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

get_cached_design

Read-only

Retrieve a cached 3D design by ID to reuse a saved design version in Kiln without rebuilding it.

Instructions

Retrieve a cached design by ID.

        Args:
            design_id: The cached design's identifier.

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": {
      "design_id": "<design_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_cached_design"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
design_idYesThe cached design's identifier.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / design_id / description
      Added value: +"The cached design's identifier."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 nothing further, notably omitting what happens on a cache miss (error vs. empty result) or whether entries expire, which is the key unknown for a cache-read tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The imperative sentence is clear and front-loaded, but the indented Args block duplicates the input schema character-for-character, so a third of the text earns nothing. No other waste.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves the return shape and cache-miss behavior unexplained. Given the simplicity, that gap is modest rather than critical.

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 description's 'Args' block merely restates the schema text verbatim, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (cached design) plus the key selector (by ID). It is distinguishable from cache_design and list_cached_designs, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_design or get_cached_model.

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 guidance on when to use this versus list_cached_designs, get_cached_model, or get_design, and no mention of prerequisites or cache lifetime. The agent must infer usage 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