Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

get_my_nozzle_wear_patterns

Read-only

Analyze nozzle wear patterns across your printers and compare wear rates with other users to spot accelerated wear and plan replacements.

Instructions

Pro+ — how fast your nozzles wear, compared with other people's.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_my_nozzle_wear_patterns"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum events to consider; defaults to 200 which covers a typical multi-year hobbyist history. Default: 200.
printer_idNoOptional filter to one printer. Empty returns the analysis across your full fleet. Default: "".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Default: 200."New value: +"Maximum events to consider; defaults to 200 which covers a typical multi-year hobbyist history. Default: 200."
    • changedInput schema / properties / printer_id / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Optional filter to one printer.  Empty returns the analysis across your full fleet. Default: \"\"."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this a safe, closed-world read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description doesn't need to restate safety. What it does add beyond the annotations is the 'Pro+' tier gating, which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about the data source, sampling window, or whether the comparison is anonymized.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the tier marker comes first and the value proposition follows. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than demonstrating tight structure.

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?

For an analysis tool with no output schema, the description leaves the return content entirely unexplained — no indication of whether it reports a wear rate, per-nozzle breakdown, percentile rank, or comparison cohort. An agent must guess what it will get back and how 'limit' events feed the comparison.

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 both 'limit' (max events, default 200) and 'printer_id' (empty = whole fleet) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters shape the wear-rate comparison, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 phrase 'how fast your nozzles wear, compared with other people's' names the resource (nozzle wear rate) and the comparative scope (your fleet vs. community), which separates it from siblings like nozzle_wear_status or get_community_wear_baseline. The verb is only implied by the tool name, but an agent can still tell what analysis this produces.

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?

The only usage signal is the 'Pro+' prefix, which hints at a tier requirement but not at when to pick this over nozzle_wear_status, get_community_wear_baseline, or nozzle_drift_attribution. There are no stated exclusions or conditions for choosing this tool.

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