Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

recommend_text_size

Read-only

Recommends text size for product decoration using product type, face, character count, and available face width; returns sizing guidance or bounds when no width is supplied.

Instructions

One-stop text-sizing helper for product decoration.

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": {
      "product_type": "<product_type>",
      "face_name": "<face_name>",
      "char_count": "<char_count>"
    },
    "name": "recommend_text_size"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
face_nameYese.g. ``"exterior_bottom"``.
char_countYeslength of the string to render.
product_typeYese.g. ``"jewelry_tray"``.
face_fill_pctNofraction of face_width to use (default 0.8). Default: 0.8.
face_width_mmNoactual available width in mm; pass 0 to get bounds only without a recommendation. Default: 0.0.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / char_count / description
      Added value: +"length of the string to render."
    • changedInput schema / properties / face_fill_pct / description
      Previous value: -"Default: 0.8."New value: +"fraction of face_width to use (default 0.8). Default: 0.8."
    • addedInput schema / properties / face_name / description
      Added value: +"e.g. ``\"exterior_bottom\"``."
    • changedInput schema / properties / face_width_mm / description
      Previous value: -"Default: 0.0."New value: +"actual available width in mm; pass 0 to get bounds only without a recommendation. Default: 0.0."
    • addedInput schema / properties / product_type / description
      Added value: +"e.g. ``\"jewelry_tray\"``."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not explain the units of the recommendation, what happens with unknown product_type/face_name, or the notable edge case (documented only in the schema) where face_width_mm=0 returns bounds without a recommendation.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Conciseness is fine; the problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, so it loses a point only for conveying so little in that one line.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter, 3-required decoration tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum state that a recommended text size (presumably in mm or points) is returned and what the caller must supply to get a meaningful answer. None of that is present, and the zero-width 'bounds only' mode is left entirely to the schema, leaving the agent without enough context to interpret results.

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 all five parameters including face_name, product_type, char_count, face_fill_pct, and face_width_mm are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given full coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies rather than a penalty.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'One-stop text-sizing helper for product decoration' essentially restates the tool name and annotation title ('Recommend text size') without saying what it actually computes or returns. The only added content is the domain ('product decoration'), which does distinguish it from unrelated siblings like recommend_hole or recommend_magnet_for_product, but the agent still cannot tell whether it returns a point size, a bounding box, or bounds only.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Nearby siblings such as describe_face, get_face_emboss_depth, get_product_faces, and list_decoratable_faces are plausibly upstream steps (you may need a face_name before calling this), yet the description never says so or explains when this helper should be preferred over sizing manually.

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