Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

print_history

Read-only

Review recent 3D print outcomes by retrieving success and failure records, with optional filters for printer and status.

Instructions

Get recent print history with success/failure tracking.

Args:
    printer_name: Filter by printer name, or all printers if omitted.
    status: Filter by status (``"completed"`` or ``"failed"``).
    limit: Maximum records to return (default 20).

The response declares its own SCOPE.  These are the prints THIS
machine recorded — another computer running Kiln keeps its own
history — and ``scope.local.total_records`` gives the store's full
matching count when ``limit`` truncated the page.

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": "print_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum records to return (default 20). Default: 20.
statusNoFilter by status (``"completed"`` or ``"failed"``).
printer_nameNoFilter by printer name, or all printers if omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Default: 20."New value: +"Maximum records to return (default 20). Default: 20."
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_name / description
      Added value: +"Filter by printer name, or all printers if omitted."
    • addedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Added value: +"Filter by status (``\"completed\"`` or ``\"failed\"``)."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.5.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / limit / default
      Removed value: -20
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Default: 20."
    • removedInput schema / properties / printer_name / default
      Removed value: -null
    • removedInput schema / properties / status / default
      Removed value: -null
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, local-only behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: results are this machine's records only, and `scope.local.total_records` holds the untruncated match count. That truncation/scope detail is exactly the kind of thing annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing ordering (most-recent-first?) or how far back 'recent' reaches.

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?

The opening sentence is front-loaded with the core action, and the scope paragraph is short and high-value. The Args block duplicates the schema text and could be dropped without information loss, which is the only real efficiency ding.

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 3-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, filtering intent, and truncation accounting, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not say how records are ordered or whether there is any time window on 'recent', leaving a small but real gap for interpreting the result set.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters, and the Args block largely restates those descriptions verbatim rather than adding meaning. No extra detail is given about `printer_name` matching semantics (exact vs substring, case sensitivity) or how `limit` interacts with the scope total beyond the truncation note.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get recent print history') plus the scope of the data ('success/failure tracking'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with history-flavored siblings such as `failure_history`, `job_history`, or `get_model_print_history`, which keeps it from 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: an agent can infer this is the tool for browsing recent print outcomes, and the filter args suggest narrowing by printer or status. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance, and no statement of what to do if the desired history lives on another machine beyond the note that it isn't here.

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