Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

list_trusted_printers

Read-only

Retrieve trusted printer hostnames/IPs to identify explicitly approved devices and help prevent spoofed-printer attacks during discovery.

Instructions

Return the list of trusted printer hostnames/IPs.

Trusted printers are used to flag discovered printers that have been explicitly approved by the user, preventing spoofed-printer attacks.

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": "list_trusted_printers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 fully covered outside the description. The description adds that the payload is hostnames/IPs and frames the result as a spoofing-prevention allowlist, but says nothing about ordering, emptiness, or whether unregistered printers appear.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return value, followed by a short rationale. The indented block formatting inherited from docstrings is slightly untidy but adds no real noise.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so ('list of trusted printer hostnames/IPs'). For a zero-argument read tool whose annotations already state safety, this is close to complete; only the result's format or emptiness behavior is left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly signals that no inputs are needed.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Return the list of trusted printer hostnames/IPs'. The second sentence explains what 'trusted' means, which disambiguates it from sibling listing tools. It stops short of naming its siblings trust_printer/untrust_printer/discover_printers, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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: the agent can infer this is a read to run when it needs to know which discovered printers are already approved. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to the sibling tools that mutate this list.

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