Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

revoke_consent_window

Destructive

Close an open consent window to stop queued 3D-print jobs from starting, or revoke always-allow so the person is asked again before printing.

Instructions

Close a standing consent window now. Prints ask the person again.

        The person opened the window — in the approval dialog or at a
        terminal — and can close it here, through you, without touching
        a terminal: when they say to close it, call this.  Closing is
        the safe direction, so it needs no confirmation and no window
        can refuse it.  Jobs queued under the window will not start.

        This is also how always allow is turned off: when the person
        says "ask me first", call this with the printer's name (or the
        id on the print result) and show them the ``note`` as written.

        Args:
            window_id: The window to close (from ``consent_window_status``
                or the ``standing_window`` block on a print result).
            printer_name: Close every open window covering this printer.
            all_windows: Close every open window.

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": "revoke_consent_window"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
window_idNoThe window to close (from ``consent_window_status`` or the ``standing_window`` block on a print result).
all_windowsNoClose every open window. Default: false.
printer_nameNoClose every open window covering this printer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / all_windows / description
      Previous value: -"Default: false."New value: +"Close every open window. Default: false."
    • addedInput schema / properties / printer_name / description
      Added value: +"Close every open window covering this printer."
    • addedInput schema / properties / window_id / description
      Added value: +"The window to close (from ``consent_window_status`` or the ``standing_window`` block on a print result)."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations supply destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: closing requires no confirmation, no window can refuse it, queued jobs under the window will not start, and prints will re-prompt afterward. The framing of closing as 'the safe direction' somewhat softens the destructive hint, but it describes consequence rather than denying it, so it is not a contradiction.

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?

The core action and safety note are front-loaded in the first sentences, and later paragraphs cover the 'always allow' off-switch and the parameter list. It is slightly prose-heavy but each paragraph carries distinct information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a low-complexity, zero-required-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers triggers, consequences, and targeting. It also hints at a returned ``note`` field to relay to the user, which compensates for the absent output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the Args section largely restates the schema descriptions, including the references to consent_window_status and the standing_window block. It confirms each parameter's role but adds little beyond the structured field text, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Close a standing consent window now.' It also distinguishes the tool from consent_window_status by explaining that this closes rather than inspects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit trigger conditions are given: 'when they say to close it, call this', and 'when the person says "ask me first", call this with the printer's name'. The three parameters are each framed as alternative targeting modes (single window, printer, or all), so the agent knows how to select scope.

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