Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

get_printer_melt_rate

Read-only

Get how much plastic per second a given printer and material can melt, using nozzle-based slicing assumptions, to set accurate flow and print settings.

Instructions

How much plastic per second one material can melt on a printer: the figure Kiln slices it at.

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": {
      "printer_model": "<printer_model>",
      "material": "<material>"
    },
    "name": "get_printer_melt_rate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialYesA material such as ``pla``, ``PETG`` or ``tpu``.
nozzle_mmNoThe nozzle the slice is for. Left out, it is the one a slice for this printer would use: the nozzle on record for it, else its stock size, else 0.4, and the reply says it was a default.
printer_modelYesA catalogue printer such as ``bambu_a1``.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Added value: +"A material such as ``pla``, ``PETG`` or ``tpu``."
    • addedInput schema / properties / nozzle_mm / description
      Added value: +"The nozzle the slice is for.  Left out, it is the one a slice for this printer would use: the nozzle on record for it, else its stock size, else 0.4, and the reply says it was a default."
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_model / description
      Added value: +"A catalogue printer such as ``bambu_a1``."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world catalogue lookup, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds semantic grounding (a rate of plastic per second tied to the slicer) but says nothing about what happens for an uncatalogued printer/material pair or how the value is derived.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with what is returned and closes with the operational framing. Zero redundancy, though the elliptical grammar ('How much plastic per second one material can melt') costs a little readability.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a three-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it conveys that a numeric rate is returned and that the nozzle fallback is documented in the schema. The remaining gap is that it never states the unit basis (mass vs. volume) or that the value may be an interpolated/default figure.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the nozzle defaulting cascade, so the description is not required to compensate. It adds no extra meaning about material naming or nozzle selection beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline.

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?

It names a specific resource being returned: the per-second melt rate for one material on one printer, and frames it as the number Kiln's slicer uses, which distinguishes it from neighbours like get_material_properties or get_material_slicing_profile. The verb is only implied ('get' is missing from the sentence) and no sibling is named, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'the figure Kiln slices it at' implies the use case (feeding slicer/estimation logic), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_material_slicing_profile or estimate_print_time. An agent must infer the routing decision.

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