Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

validate_design_for_requirements

Read-only

Checks whether a generated STL or OBJ model meets structural, dimensional, and manufacturability requirements, returning pass/fail per check with fix suggestions to apply before printing.

Instructions

Validate a 3D model against functional design requirements.

        Checks that a generated STL/OBJ model meets the structural,
        dimensional, and manufacturability constraints implied by the
        requirements.  Returns pass/fail per check with specific fix
        suggestions for any failures.

        Call this AFTER generating a model and BEFORE printing it.
        If validation fails, use the fix suggestions to improve the
        generation prompt and regenerate.

        Args:
            file_path: Path to STL or OBJ file.
            requirements: Same requirements text used for analyze_design_requirements.
            material: Optional material (e.g. "petg").

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "requirements": "<requirements>"
    },
    "name": "validate_design_for_requirements"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialNoOptional material (e.g. "petg").
file_pathYesPath to STL or OBJ file.
requirementsYesSame requirements text used for analyze_design_requirements.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / file_path / description
      Added value: +"Path to STL or OBJ file."
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Added value: +"Optional material (e.g. \"petg\")."
    • addedInput schema / properties / requirements / description
      Added value: +"Same requirements text used for analyze_design_requirements."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / material / default
      Removed value: -null
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the useful disclosure that output is pass/fail per check plus concrete fix suggestions, which acts as a substitute for the missing output schema. It stops short of covering how the file is read or how many checks run, which is a minor gap for a read-only validator.

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 purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, followed by the behavior, then the workflow instruction — a sensible order. The trailing Args block duplicates the input schema and could be dropped without information loss.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps up by explaining the return shape (pass/fail per check with fixes), which is what an agent needs to interpret results. Minor omissions remain, such as whether the material argument changes which manufacturability constraints are applied, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the 'petg'-style material example and the requirement that requirements text match what was passed to analyze_design_requirements. The description's Args block largely restates the schema rather than adding syntax, format, or defaulting information, so baseline 3 is right.

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?

Names a specific verb (validate) and resource (a generated STL/OBJ 3D model) and scopes the check to structural, dimensional, and manufacturability constraints. This clearly separates it from nearby siblings such as analyze_design_requirements (which parses requirements) and analyze_printability or validate_generated_mesh.

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?

Gives an explicit lifecycle position: 'Call this AFTER generating a model and BEFORE printing it.' It also states the failure path — use the fix suggestions to improve the generation prompt and regenerate — so the agent knows both the trigger and the next action.

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