Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

job_status

Read-only

Check the status and progress of a queued or completed 3D print job by ID, returning timing, metadata, queue position, and scheduler watch state.

Instructions

Get the status of a queued or completed print job.

Args:
    job_id: The job ID returned by ``submit_job``.

Returns the full job record including status, timing, and metadata,
plus ``waiting`` while it is queued -- ``kind`` (``plate``: the last
print is still on the plate; ``turn``: one printer at a time and
another is printing; ``switch``: below Kiln Business the queue stays on
one printer, and this job waits for the person to move Kiln to its
printer; ``printing``, ``busy``, ``retry`` or ``in_line``),
``sentence`` to show the person, and ``ahead``, how many jobs go first
-- and ``watch`` when the scheduler is watching it: ``state`` is
``moving`` / ``stalled`` / ``no_contact`` / ``watching`` and ``note``
is the sentence to show a person when it is not moving.

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "job_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesThe job ID returned by ``submit_job``.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / job_id / description
      Added value: +"The job ID returned by ``submit_job``."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive call, so the description's real contribution is explaining the meaning of the returned fields, especially the waiting.kind states and the watch.state values. That is genuine domain context an agent cannot get from structured fields. It does not cover polling behavior, cost, or what happens once a job is complete, which keeps it from a 5.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded, but the Returns section is a dense parenthetical run-on that mixes enumeration levels, so that 'printing, busy, retry or in_line' reads as part of the kind list rather than as separate statuses. It is informative but needs restructuring and trimming to earn its length.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description correctly attempts to document return values, but the explanation is hard to parse and omits practical essentials such as how to poll, what a terminal status looks like, and how this differs from job_history or queue_summary.

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 repeats the same sentence verbatim ('The job ID returned by submit_job'), adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the parameter documentation.

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?

First sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the status of a queued or completed print job.' An agent immediately knows the operation. However, it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as job_history, queue_summary, monitor_print or fleet_job_status, so it stops 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?

Usage is only implied through the workflow hint that job_id comes from submit_job, which suggests calling this after submitting. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus a history or monitor tool, and no mention of whether it should be polled or how often.

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