Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

submit_drawing_extraction

Submit structured engineering drawing extractions for verification: validate every callout against the drawing’s text and optionally preview results without saving.

Instructions

Submit your structured extraction of a drawing for verification.

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": {
      "intake_id": "<intake_id>",
      "extraction": "<extraction>"
    },
    "name": "submit_drawing_extraction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
saveNo``False`` to validate without persisting (preview). Default: true.
intake_idYesFrom ``intake_engineering_drawing``.
extractionYesThe filled extraction object, in the exact shape ``intake_engineering_drawing`` returned as ``extraction_guide``; every ``callout_verbatim`` is checked against the drawing's text.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / extraction / description
      Added value: +"The filled extraction object, in the exact shape ``intake_engineering_drawing`` returned as ``extraction_guide``; every ``callout_verbatim`` is checked against the drawing's text."
    • addedInput schema / properties / intake_id / description
      Added value: +"From ``intake_engineering_drawing``."
    • changedInput schema / properties / save / description
      Previous value: -"Default: true."New value: +"``False`` to validate without persisting (preview). Default: true."
  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 declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds a real piece of context beyond that — the Kiln Business tier requirement — but says nothing about what happens on validation failure, whether rejected extractions are persisted, or whether the verification result is blocking.

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 lines, action first, prerequisite second — front-loaded with no filler. 'Needs Kiln Business' is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 write tool with a nested required object and no output schema, the schema carries most of the burden and does it well. The description leaves the agent without any sense of the verification outcome or failure behavior, which matters for a submission step that other pipeline tools likely depend on.

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 parameter descriptions are rich, covering the preview semantics of 'save', the provenance of 'intake_id', and the callout_verbatim checking on 'extraction'. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('submit your structured extraction of a drawing') and adds the purpose ('for verification'), so the agent knows this is a terminal submission step, not an analysis step. It never names the sibling it pairs with (intake_engineering_drawing), so differentiation is only implied via the schema's reference.

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?

The 'Needs Kiln Business' line is a useful prerequisite gate, and the schema ties intake_id to intake_engineering_drawing. However, the description never states when to call this versus intake_engineering_drawing or assess_drawing_manufacturability, nor does it explain the preview-vs-persist workflow that the 'save' parameter implies.

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