Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

may_i_print

Read-only

Determine whether a print can start on a named printer now and whose approval authorizes it.

Instructions

May the caller start a print on this printer right now, and on whose say-so?

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_name": "<printer_name>"
    },
    "name": "may_i_print"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_hashNoThe sha256 of the file's bytes about to print, so a person's approval of that one file can count. Omitted, only a standing delegation for the printer can answer yes, and a person asking is told to ask again with the hash. Default: "".
printer_nameYesThe name of the printer the print would start on. An empty name is refused.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / file_hash / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"The sha256 of the file's bytes about to print, so a person's approval of that one file can count.  Omitted, only a standing delegation for the printer can answer yes, and a person asking is told to ask again with the hash. Default: \"\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_name / description
      Added value: +"The name of the printer the print would start on.  An empty name is refused."
  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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the answer includes an authority ('on whose say-so'), which is genuine extra context about the return semantics, but it does not say what a denial looks like or that omitting the hash downgrades the answer to a standing delegation.

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 sentence with no wasted words, and the core question (may I print now) is front-loaded. It is slightly too terse for the cryptic phrasing to stand alone without schema support.

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?

With only two parameters, full schema coverage, and a read-only annotation profile, the definition is close to adequate, but a permission-check tool benefits from stating the shape of a yes/no/needs-approval outcome and the fallback behavior when no hash is supplied, neither of which the description covers.

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 printer_name and file_hash are fully documented in the schema, including the hash's effect on approval scope. The description itself adds nothing about parameters, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description frames the tool as a permission query ('may the caller start a print on this printer right now'), which conveys check-before-acting intent rather than an action. However, it is phrased as a rhetorical question rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as check_autonomy, check_print_readiness, or preflight_check, leaving an agent to infer which gate to consult.

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: an agent can guess this belongs before start_print. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing, no statement that it must be called before attempting a print, and no mention that callers without a file_hash may get a 'ask again with hash' answer (that detail only exists in the parameter schema).

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