Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

record_skin_contact_outcome

Record real-world skin contact outcomes for printed parts by material, exposure, and reaction type to track irritation or allergic reactions and guide material suitability.

Instructions

Log what happened when someone actually wore or handled a printed 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>",
      "exposure": "<exposure>",
      "outcome": "<outcome>"
    },
    "name": "record_skin_contact_outcome"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoOptional free text kept for the record. NEVER surfaced to other callers and never used to attribute a cause. Default: "".
outcomeYesOne of "no_reaction", "irritation", "allergic_reaction", "other_reaction".
exposureYesHow it was used -- e.g. "ring worn daily", "brief handling", "earbud tip". Mapped to the same exposure tiers the suitability check uses.
materialYesThe printed material worn or handled -- e.g. "PLA", "PETG", "resin".
design_idNoOptional design to attach the report to. Default: "".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / design_id / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Optional design to attach the report to. Default: \"\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / exposure / description
      Added value: +"How it was used -- e.g. \"ring worn daily\", \"brief handling\", \"earbud tip\". Mapped to the same exposure tiers the suitability check uses."
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Added value: +"The printed material worn or handled -- e.g. \"PLA\", \"PETG\", \"resin\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / notes / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Optional free text kept for the record. NEVER surfaced to other callers and never used to attribute a cause. Default: \"\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / outcome / description
      Added value: +"One of \"no_reaction\", \"irritation\", \"allergic_reaction\", \"other_reaction\"."
  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 establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds the important prerequisite that a Kiln Business entitlement is required, which annotations cannot express. Beyond that it says nothing about what happens to a logged outcome, whether it feeds later suitability assessments, or its retention.

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 sentences, the purpose front-loaded and the prerequisite second. Minimal waste, though the fragment "Needs Kiln Business" could be integrated more smoothly with the main clause.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential gating requirement and the basic act being recorded. It leaves open what the caller gets back and how the record connects to the skin-contact suitability tooling, which matters for an agent deciding whether to also run the check.

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 the schema already explains material, exposure, outcome, design_id, and notes in detail, including the privacy behavior of notes. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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?

"Log what happened when someone actually wore or handled a printed part" gives a specific verb (log) and resource (a real-world skin-contact event), which cleanly separates it from the adjacent check_skin_contact_suitability and check_skin_contact_declaration tools. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the distinction.

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?

"Needs Kiln Business" states a prerequisite, which is genuinely useful gating information. However, there is no guidance on when to record versus when to use the suitability check, no note on whether this should be filed before or after an outcome, and no exclusions.

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