Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

record_decoration_success

Record a decoration print's successful settings—material, depth, mode—so those parameters can be reliably replayed later.

Instructions

Record a successful print with a saved decoration (Kiln Pro).

        After a decoration prints well, call this with the settings that
        worked.  ``apply_decoration`` then replays them on that material.

        :param name: Decoration name or slug.
        :param material: Material used (e.g. ``"PLA"``, ``"PETG"``).
        :param depth_mm: Depth in mm that printed well.
        :param mode: ``"emboss"`` or ``"deboss"``.
        :param image_style: Image style that worked (e.g. ``"coin"``).
        :param source_job_id: The print's job id when known: the same
            print reported twice (here and through
            ``record_print_outcome``) counts once.
        :returns: Dict with the updated 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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "material": "<material>",
      "depth_mm": "<depth_mm>"
    },
    "name": "record_decoration_success"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNo``"emboss"`` or ``"deboss"``. Default: "emboss".
nameYesDecoration name or slug.
depth_mmYesDepth in mm that printed well.
materialYesMaterial used (e.g. ``"PLA"``, ``"PETG"``).
image_styleNoImage style that worked (e.g. ``"coin"``). Default: "auto".
source_job_idNoThe print's job id when known: the same print reported twice (here and through ``record_print_outcome``) counts once. Default: "".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / depth_mm / description
      Added value: +"Depth in mm that printed well."
    • changedInput schema / properties / image_style / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"auto\"."New value: +"Image style that worked (e.g. ``\"coin\"``). Default: \"auto\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Added value: +"Material used (e.g. ``\"PLA\"``, ``\"PETG\"``)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / mode / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"emboss\"."New value: +"``\"emboss\"`` or ``\"deboss\"``. Default: \"emboss\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"Decoration name or slug."
    • changedInput schema / properties / source_job_id / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"The print's job id when known: the same print reported twice (here and through ``record_print_outcome``) counts once. Default: \"\"."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: the deduplication rule for source_job_id across this tool and record_print_outcome, and the fact that the stored settings become replayable input for apply_decoration. It does not discuss permissions or what happens on conflicting re-records, keeping it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and the apply_decoration linkage are front-loaded well, but the block of :param: lines restates structured data already present in the schema and earns nothing. The :returns: line is useful, yet the overall shape is a raw docstring rather than a description tuned for tool selection.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and a mutation annotation set, the description covers the trigger, the downstream effect, the cross-tool dedup rule, and the return shape ("Dict with the updated decoration"). Only minor gaps remain, such as whether re-recording the same name/material/depth overwrites prior entries.

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%, and the description's :param: lines are verbatim duplicates of the schema property descriptions (name, material, depth_mm, mode, image_style, source_job_id). It adds no syntax, units, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema is correct.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Record a successful print with a saved decoration") and immediately names the downstream consumer, apply_decoration, which replays the recorded settings. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling record_print_outcome by explaining that the same print reported through both counts once.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states the trigger condition clearly: "After a decoration prints well, call this with the settings that worked." That is actionable timing guidance, and the apply_decoration reference explains the payoff. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. what to do on a failed print, or which sibling to use for that), so it falls short of a 5.

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