Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

record_extrusion_event

Log sensor-side extrusion deviations for a printer, capturing event type and severity to help diagnose under-extrusion, clog warnings, or flow spikes.

Instructions

Pro+ — record a sensor-side extrusion-deviation event.

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_id": "<printer_id>"
    },
    "name": "record_extrusion_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
severityNo``low`` / ``medium`` / ``high``. Default: "medium".
event_typeNoCoarse classification: ``under_extrusion`` (default) / ``clog_warn`` / ``flow_spike``. Default: "under_extrusion".
printer_idYesActive printer identifier.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / event_type / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"under_extrusion\"."New value: +"Coarse classification: ``under_extrusion`` (default) / ``clog_warn`` / ``flow_spike``. Default: \"under_extrusion\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_id / description
      Added value: +"Active printer identifier."
    • changedInput schema / properties / severity / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"medium\"."New value: +"``low`` / ``medium`` / ``high``. Default: \"medium\"."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely non-schema fact: this requires the Pro+ tier. It does not disclose whether duplicate events are deduplicated, whether recording an event triggers operator alerts/interception, or what is returned, which matters for a telemetry write that may feed downstream monitoring.

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?

A single short sentence with the tier gate front-loaded and no filler. The brevity is appropriate for a simple three-parameter logging tool, though the em-dash construction separates the access gate from the action in a way that is slightly telegraphic.

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 small write tool with a fully documented schema and complete annotations, an agent can invoke it correctly from this definition. What is missing is the consequence side: whether this is pure telemetry or triggers alerts/interception, and whether a printer_id must be currently connected — facts that are not in the structured fields and not supplied here.

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%, with severity, event_type and printer_id all having field-level descriptions including defaults and enum-like values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase "sensor-side" hints at the origin of the event but adds no format, constraint, or example beyond what the schema supplies; 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?

The description pairs a clear verb ("record") with a specific resource ("sensor-side extrusion-deviation event"), so an agent knows this writes a deviation log entry rather than performing diagnostics. It does not name or differentiate itself from the many other record_* siblings (record_print_outcome, record_nozzle_replacement, record_calibration_correction), so sibling disambiguation is left to the agent.

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 only usage cue is the "Pro+" tier gate, which indicates availability but not when to call this versus alternatives. There is no guidance on preconditions (e.g., a print must be active), no exclusions, and no mention of related siblings such as record_print_outcome or report_issue that could plausibly be confused with this logging action.

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