Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

record_esd_measurement

Log measured surface resistance in ohms for a printed dissipative part, capturing material, test method, and nozzle temperature so ESD compliance can be verified per part.

Instructions

Log a measured surface resistance for a printed dissipative part.

Needs Kiln Business.

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": {
      "material": "<material>",
      "ohms": "<ohms>"
    },
    "name": "record_esd_measurement"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ohmsYesMeasured surface resistance in ohms (e.g. 5.0e7).
notesNoAnything else worth carrying -- orientation, finish, whether the part was cleaned. Default: "".
methodNoTest method if known, e.g. "ANSI/ESD STM11.11". Default: "".
surfaceNoWhich face was measured: ``"contact"`` (the surface that touches hardware, the one that matters, default) or ``"other"``; empty is recorded as unstated. Default: "contact".
materialYesThe dissipative grade printed -- e.g. "PETG-ESD".
design_idNoOptional design to attach the reading to. Default: "".
printer_idNoOptional printer that produced the part. Default: "".
nozzle_temp_cNoNozzle temperature the part was printed at -- the dominant variable; include it whenever you know it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / design_id / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Optional design to attach the reading to. Default: \"\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Added value: +"The dissipative grade printed -- e.g. \"PETG-ESD\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / method / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Test method if known, e.g. \"ANSI/ESD STM11.11\". Default: \"\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / notes / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Anything else worth carrying -- orientation, finish, whether the part was cleaned. Default: \"\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / nozzle_temp_c / description
      Added value: +"Nozzle temperature the part was printed at -- the dominant variable; include it whenever you know it."
    • addedInput schema / properties / ohms / description
      Added value: +"Measured surface resistance in ohms (e.g. 5.0e7)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / printer_id / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Optional printer that produced the part. Default: \"\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / surface / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"contact\"."New value: +"Which face was measured: ``\"contact\"`` (the surface that touches hardware, the one that matters, default) or ``\"other\"``; empty is recorded as unstated. Default: \"contact\"."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is known. The description adds one piece of genuinely useful non-annotation context -- 'Needs Kiln Business' -- which signals a subscription/tier prerequisite, but says nothing about idempotency, deduplication of repeated readings, or whether a failed tier check errors out.

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?

Two short lines, purpose front-loaded, zero padding. The prerequisite sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic ('Needs Kiln Business') but it is at least separated clearly from the purpose statement.

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 an eight-parameter recording tool with no output schema and rich schema-level docs, the description covers intent and a tier prerequisite but omits what an agent would want to know: what is returned (an id?), whether a reading can be corrected or superseded, and how it relates to the design/printer ids it accepts.

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 eight parameters are already documented with examples and defaults (including the contact/other surface semantics). The description adds no meaning beyond that -- 'measured surface resistance' merely restates the ohms field -- so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Log) and resource (measured surface resistance) plus the object class (printed dissipative part), which is far more precise than a generic 'record'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby recording tools such as ingest_measurement or the various record_*_outcome siblings, so an agent must infer which recorder applies.

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: you call this after taking a resistance reading on a printed ESD part. There is no explicit when-not-to-use, no mention of when to prefer ingest_measurement or record_calibration_correction, and no stated preconditions beyond the tier gate.

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