Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

record_recovery_check

Records whether a post-recovery monitoring check passed after recovery execution, with optional notes, to verify a 3D print is proceeding correctly.

Instructions

Record a post-recovery monitoring check result.

        After recovery execution, monitoring checks verify the print
        is proceeding correctly.

        Args:
            session_id: The session_id being monitored.
            passed: Whether this monitoring check passed.
            notes: Optional notes about the check result.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "passed": "<passed>"
    },
    "name": "record_recovery_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoOptional notes about the check result. Default: "".
passedYesWhether this monitoring check passed.
session_idYesThe session_id being monitored.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / notes / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Optional notes about the check result. Default: \"\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / passed / description
      Added value: +"Whether this monitoring check passed."
    • addedInput schema / properties / session_id / description
      Added value: +"The session_id being monitored."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / notes / default
      Removed value: -""
    • addedInput schema / properties / notes / description
      Added value: +"Default: \"\"."
  3. First observedv0.1.0

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 safety profile is largely covered. The description adds that this is a monitoring-check record made after recovery, but says nothing about whether checks accumulate over a session, whether a failed check triggers follow-up behavior, or whether writes are idempotent.

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?

Only two substantive sentences plus an Args block; the purpose is front-loaded. The Args section duplicates schema descriptions, which is mild waste but not harmful.

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 three-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials, but it leaves ambiguous what 'session_id' identifies (a recovery session versus a print session) and whether any result is returned. An agent could call it, but with some uncertainty.

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 three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description's Args block restates the same text nearly verbatim, adding no format hints (e.g., what a session_id looks like) beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Record a post-recovery monitoring check result') and adds context that these checks verify the print is proceeding correctly after recovery execution. However, it does not distinguish this from nearby siblings such as record_recovery_outcome, get_recovery_session_status, or complete_print_recovery, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Timing is implied by 'After recovery execution,' which tells the agent this happens post-recovery, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this instead of record_recovery_outcome or complete_print_recovery. No prerequisites or frequency expectations are given.

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