Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

list_feature_versions

Read-only

Retrieve every version of a specified 3D design feature, ordered oldest first, by providing its stable feature ID. Requires Kiln Pro.

Instructions

List every version of one feature, oldest first.

Needs Kiln Pro.

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": {
      "feature_id": "<feature_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_feature_versions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
feature_idYesThe stable feature id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / feature_id / description
      Added value: +"The stable feature id."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two pieces of non-obvious context the annotations lack: the result ordering (oldest first) and a plan-tier gate (Kiln Pro). It does not mention pagination or result size, 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, with the core action and ordering front-loaded and the prerequisite separated out. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool this covers the essentials: what is listed, in what order, and the tier requirement. Since there is no output schema, it could say more about what a version record contains or whether results are capped, but the gaps are minor.

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 single parameter feature_id is already documented as "The stable feature id." The description adds no format, id-source, or failure-mode detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

"List every version of one feature, oldest first" gives a specific verb (list), resource (feature versions) and scope (a single feature) plus an ordering guarantee. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like list_feature_releases or list_feature_branches, 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 by the resource name – an agent must infer that this is the history view for one feature. The "Needs Kiln Pro" line does give a real prerequisite, which is more than most, but no explicit when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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