Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

review_magnet_supplier_packet

Read-only

Review a magnet supplier packet to surface evidence gaps across grade, dimensions, coating, lot, test method, origin, heat limits. Returns warnings plus fit, validation, QC, child-safety checks.

Instructions

Review a magnet supplier packet for Enterprise-grade evidence gaps.

Free door, tiered answer — Free: Warnings — always free · Pro: Sizing and fit for the hardware you bought · Business: + Per-machine fit, validation tests and QC plans across your fleet · Enterprise: + Child-safety & supplier vetting for magnets.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "review_magnet_supplier_packet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_temp_cNoThe product's maximum service temperature in degrees C, if known; with a declared N-grade it checks that grade's documented operating ceiling. Omitted, no heat check.
supplier_fields_jsonNoThe supplier's declared fields, as a JSON object string or a dict: ``grade``, ``magnetization_direction``, ``dimensions``, ``coating``, ``lot``, ``test_method`` and ``country_of_origin``. Unreadable JSON is read as an empty packet, so every field reports missing. Default: "".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_temp_c / description
      Added value: +"The product's maximum service temperature in degrees C, if known; with a declared N-grade it checks that grade's documented operating ceiling.  Omitted, no heat check."
    • changedInput schema / properties / supplier_fields_json / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"The supplier's declared fields, as a JSON object string or a dict: ``grade``, ``magnetization_direction``, ``dimensions``, ``coating``, ``lot``, ``test_method`` and ``country_of_origin``.  Unreadable JSON is read as an empty packet, so every field reports missing. Default: \"\"."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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's one genuine behavioral contribution is that output depth is tier-gated — free returns only warnings, Enterprise adds child-safety and supplier vetting — which the agent cannot learn from the schema. It still says nothing about what the review report actually contains or how gaps are reported.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose sentence is well front-loaded, but the bulk of the description is promotional tier copy that reads as an upsell rather than tool documentation. Those characters would be far better spent on what the review returns, and no sentence in the tier block earns its place for tool selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and an audit-style tool, the description should tell the agent the shape of the result (a per-field gap report, presumably). Instead it describes purchase tiers, leaving the agent unable to anticipate the response or judge whether a returned 'missing grade' means failure or just absence of input.

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 max_temp_c (grade ceiling heat check) and supplier_fields_json (the seven expected declared fields, unreadable JSON read as an empty packet). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Review a magnet supplier packet') and states the goal ('Enterprise-grade evidence gaps'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, roughly two-thirds of the text immediately pivots to subscription-tier marketing, and it never distinguishes this from close siblings such as generate_magnet_qc_plan, check_magnet_design, or manage_supplier_document_evidence. An agent can guess the domain but not the precise scope.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tool is named as an alternative. The tier ladder ('Free: Warnings — always free · Pro: …') describes what the answer contains at each subscription level, not the conditions under which an agent should select this tool over another.

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