Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

request_calibration_test_print

Read-only

Get a pointer to your slicer's native calibration wizard for a specific printer and material, so you can run the right calibration test print. Requires Kiln Pro.

Instructions

Return a pointer to the user's slicer's native calibration wizard.

Needs Kiln Pro.

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>",
      "material": "<material>"
    },
    "name": "request_calibration_test_print"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialYesThe filament / resin / stock material.
printer_idYesThe printer the user is calibrating.
test_piece_kindNoReserved for future variants; only ``"slicer_native"`` is supported in this release. Default: "slicer_native".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Added value: +"The filament / resin / stock material."
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_id / description
      Added value: +"The printer the user is calibrating."
    • changedInput schema / properties / test_piece_kind / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"slicer_native\"."New value: +"Reserved for future variants; only ``\"slicer_native\"`` is supported in this release. Default: \"slicer_native\"."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond that: it requires Kiln Pro, and it returns a pointer rather than executing a print. It stops short of describing the response shape or any failure modes.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by the prerequisite. No filler, though the phrasing 'Return a pointer' is slightly vague about what is actually returned.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what the returned 'pointer' is (URL, deep link, opaque token) and how to use it. It covers the tier gate and the non-executing nature but leaves the return contract and sibling differentiation unaddressed.

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 printer_id, material, and test_piece_kind all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, valid values, or how material interacts with the printer choice.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description says it returns a pointer to the slicer's native calibration wizard, which is more informative than the name, but there's a mismatch with the tool name 'request_calibration_test_print' (which implies requesting a test print job). It does not distinguish this from siblings such as calibrate_direct, run_calibrate, or apply_calibration_recommendations.

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?

'Needs Kiln Pro' communicates a tier prerequisite, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over calibrate_direct or run_calibrate, nor any exclusion conditions. The agent is left to infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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