Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

get_material_design_profile

Read-only

Look up a material's public design floor plus its safety and process compatibility to verify suitability before deeper 3D-printing engineering guidance.

Instructions

Compatibility lookup for a material's public design floor.

        Returns the same public safety and process fields as
        ``get_material_properties``. For deeper engineering guidance,
        ask one specific question with ``answer_material_question``.

        Args:
            material: Material ID (for example ``"pla"`` or ``"petg"``).

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_material_design_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialYesMaterial ID (for example ``"pla"`` or ``"petg"``).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Added value: +"Material ID (for example ``\"pla\"`` or ``\"petg\"``)."
  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. The description adds that the output is a fixed set of public safety and process fields, but says nothing about what "compatibility lookup" actually evaluates or how results are scoped.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence and alternatives in the third. The Args block is redundant with the schema, but overall it is tight and free of padding.

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 some burden for describing returns; it only vaguely points at "the same public safety and process fields as get_material_properties." Enough to call the tool, but not enough to know what a caller will get back.

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 Args block reproduces the schema parameter description verbatim, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the single parameter is fully documented in the schema.

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 and resource ("Compatibility lookup for a material's public design floor") and distinguishes itself from get_material_properties and answer_material_question. The phrase "design floor" is a bit opaque, but the sibling references make the tool's role inferable.

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?

Explicitly routes deep engineering questions to answer_material_question, which is useful. However, it never explains why an agent would pick this tool over get_material_properties when it returns "the same public safety and process fields" — the key selection condition against the most similar sibling is left implicit.

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