Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

nozzle_wear_status

Read-only

Retrieve accumulated wear status for a printer's nozzle by printer ID; optionally pass recent filament to select the wear threshold, or omit it to show worst-case abrasive wear.

Instructions

Pro+ — accumulated wear status for a printer's nozzle.

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_id": "<printer_id>"
    },
    "name": "nozzle_wear_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
printer_idYesStable printer identifier, the key the nozzle record is kept under. Empty is refused with ``VALIDATION_ERROR``.
recent_filamentNoThe filament recently run through the nozzle (``"PLA"``, ``"PLA-CF"``), which picks the threshold row. Omitted, the conservative abrasive row is used, so the answer shows worst-case wear.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_id / description
      Added value: +"Stable printer identifier, the key the nozzle record is kept under.  Empty is refused with ``VALIDATION_ERROR``."
    • addedInput schema / properties / recent_filament / description
      Added value: +"The filament recently run through the nozzle (``\"PLA\"``, ``\"PLA-CF\"``), which picks the threshold row.  Omitted, the conservative abrasive row is used, so the answer shows worst-case wear."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 safety is covered. The description adds two pieces of real context: 'accumulated' implies a cumulative lifetime view rather than an instantaneous reading, and 'Pro+' hints at a subscription/tier gate that could cause the call to fail. It still says nothing about what the status contains or whether history is retained.

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 tight sentence with no filler and the subject front-loaded. The only weakness is that 'Pro+' is unexplained jargon that costs a word without conveying a clear condition.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with a fully described schema, the description is enough to invoke it correctly. With no output schema, though, it should say what 'wear status' returns (percentage, threshold band, pass/fail), and it leaves that entirely unspecified.

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_id (with its VALIDATION_ERROR behavior) and recent_filament (with its conservative abrasive fallback) are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.

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?

Names a specific resource ('accumulated wear status') scoped to 'a printer's nozzle', which is more precise than the bare name. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as get_nozzle_state, nozzle_drift_attribution, cutter_wear_status, or abrasive_escalation, so an agent cannot route between them on the description alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites beyond the cryptic 'Pro+' prefix, and no named alternative. An agent has no signal for choosing this over get_nozzle_state for current state or nozzle_drift_attribution for diagnosing drift.

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