Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

printer_stats

Read-only

Retrieve aggregate performance statistics for a named 3D printer—total prints, success rate, and average duration—to evaluate usage and reliability.

Instructions

Get aggregate statistics for a printer: total prints, success rate, average duration.

Args:
    printer_name: Name of the printer to get stats for.

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": "printer_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
printer_nameYesName of the printer to get stats for.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_name / description
      Added value: +"Name of the printer to get stats for."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the returned metrics, but does not state the aggregation window, scope, or whether stats are per-printer or fleet-wide.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and wastes little space. The Args section duplicates the input schema's parameter description, but overall the definition remains short and readable.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. Missing temporal scope and sibling differentiation are meaningful gaps for an aggregate-stats tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description repeats the same printer_name meaning already documented in the schema. It adds no extra semantics such as accepted formats, lookup behavior, or error conditions.

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 aggregate printer statistics, with concrete metrics listed. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as printer_usage_summary or printer_trend_analysis.

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer from the name and metrics that this is for aggregate historical stats rather than live status or trend analysis.

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