Skip to main content
Glama

save_decoration

Save a decoration's content, depth, mode, material, and processing pipeline to the library for reuse on future models.

Instructions

Save a proven decoration to the library for reuse on future models.

        Captures the content file (heightmap, SVG, image), settings
        (depth, mode, material), and processing pipeline from the
        ``.kiln_recipe.json`` sidecar so the exact same decoration can
        be applied to new models with ``apply_decoration``.

        :param name: Human-readable name (e.g. "Ash Portrait").
        :param model_path: Path to the model that was just decorated.
        :param content_type: Content type — ``photo``, ``svg``, ``qr``,
            ``text``, or ``auto`` (detect from file extension).
        :param source_path: Path to the original input file (photo, SVG).
        :param content_data: For QR: the data string. For text: the text.
        :param depth_mm: Decoration depth in mm (0 = auto from recipe).
        :param mode: ``emboss`` or ``deboss``.
        :param image_style: Image processing style (coin, portrait, etc.).
        :param material: Material used (e.g. PLA, PETG).
        :param tags: Comma-separated tags for filtering.
        :returns: Dict with saved decoration details and library path.
        

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoemboss
nameYes
tagsNo
depth_mmNo
materialNoPLA
model_pathYes
image_styleNoauto
source_pathNo
content_dataNo
content_typeNoauto
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains what is captured (content file, settings, pipeline) and that it saves to the library for reuse. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting duplicates, permissions needed, or error scenarios (missing .kiln_recipe.json). This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 description is well-structured with a concise introductory paragraph followed by a clear parameter list. While the parameter list is lengthy (10 items), it is necessary given the complexity and lack of schema descriptions. No superfluous sentences are present.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers key aspects: purpose, what is captured, the workflow with apply_decoration, and return value (dict with details and library path). Missing some details like conflict resolution or prerequisites, but overall adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description provides thorough explanations for all 10 parameters. It clarifies each parameter's role, provides example values (e.g., 'mode' options: emboss/deboss, 'content_type' options: photo/svg/qr/text/auto), and explains the default behavior for 'depth_mm' (0 = auto). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Save a proven decoration to the library for reuse on future models.' It uses a specific verb 'Save' and resource 'decoration to the library'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'apply_decoration' by explaining that the saved decoration can later be applied, avoiding confusion.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to use: after proving a decoration on a model, to save it for reuse. It mentions using 'apply_decoration' later, providing a clear workflow connection. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives like 'list_decorations' or 'delete_decoration'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/codeofaxel/kiln'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server