Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

update_printer_site

Destructive

Assign a registered printer to a physical site or location and add optional key=value metadata tags for location tracking.

Instructions

Assign a printer to a physical site/location with optional tags.

        Args:
            name: Registered printer name.
            site: Physical site or location label (e.g. ``"nyc-lab"``,
                ``"chicago-floor-2"``).
            tags: Comma-separated key=value pairs for metadata
                (e.g. ``"building=A,floor=3,owner=team-alpha"``).

        Requires Enterprise license.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "site": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "update_printer_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesRegistered printer name.
siteYesPhysical site or location label (e.g. ``"nyc-lab"``, ``"chicago-floor-2"``).
tagsNoComma-separated key=value pairs for metadata (e.g. ``"building=A,floor=3,owner=team-alpha"``).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"Registered printer name."
    • addedInput schema / properties / site / description
      Added value: +"Physical site or location label (e.g. ``\"nyc-lab\"``, ``\"chicago-floor-2\"``)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / tags / description
      Added value: +"Comma-separated key=value pairs for metadata (e.g. ``\"building=A,floor=3,owner=team-alpha\"``)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / tags / default
      Removed value: -null
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description contributes the Enterprise-license gate, which the annotations do not cover. However, annotations declare destructiveHint=true and the description never says what is destroyed — whether an existing site assignment is overwritten and whether the tags parameter replaces or merges with existing metadata. For a mutating tool flagged destructive, that omission is significant.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The lead sentence and the license note are front-loaded and earn their place, but the Args block is pure duplication of a fully described schema and could be dropped without losing information. The embedded indentation and reStructuredText markup also make it slightly bulkier than needed.

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?

With no output schema, the definition should say what a successful assignment returns or confirms, and it does not. Combined with the unexplained destructive behavior and the absence of any note about tag replacement semantics, the definition is adequate to invoke but not adequate to invoke safely.

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% and the Args block reproduces the schema descriptions verbatim, including the same examples, so no meaning is added beyond the structured fields. The only marginal gain is showing the three parameters grouped together for reading convenience.

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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Assign a printer to a physical site/location with optional tags.' It is clearly distinguishable from near-siblings such as rename_printer or set_printer_model, though it never names any of them, and the verb 'Assign' sits slightly at odds with the tool name's 'update'.

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 definition adds a real prerequisite — 'Requires Enterprise license' — which tells an agent when the call will be unavailable, but it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like fleet assignment or site listing, nor what happens if the printer already has a site.

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