Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

validate_scad_parameters

Read-only

Checks OpenSCAD parameter values such as wall thickness and hole diameter against material-specific design limits to catch violations before compilation or printing.

Instructions

Validate OpenSCAD parameters against material design limits.

        Checks if parameter values (wall thickness, hole diameter, etc.)
        violate the design limits for the specified material. Catches
        issues before compilation and printing.

        Args:
            scad_code: OpenSCAD source code string.
            material: Optional material ID (e.g. "pla", "petg") to check
                against material-specific limits.

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": {
      "scad_code": "<scad_code>"
    },
    "name": "validate_scad_parameters"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialNoOptional material ID (e.g. "pla", "petg") to check against material-specific limits.
scad_codeYesOpenSCAD source code string.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / material / description
      Added value: +"Optional material ID (e.g. \"pla\", \"petg\") to check against material-specific limits."
    • addedInput schema / properties / scad_code / description
      Added value: +"OpenSCAD source code string."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / material / 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 readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false annotations already establish that this is a safe, local, non-mutating check, so the description's job is lighter. It adds the useful framing that validation happens against material-specific limits, but says nothing about what happens when material is omitted, how violations are reported, or how many issues it can detect.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and effective, but the second sentence largely restates the first ('checks if... violate the design limits'), and the trailing Args section duplicates the input schema verbatim without adding information.

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 two-parameter, read-only validation tool this covers what it does and roughly when to run it. With no output schema, the description should say what a result looks like (boolean pass/fail, list of violations, severity), and that 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description's Args block reproduces the same text for scad_code and material, including the 'pla'/'petg' examples, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already carries parameter semantics.

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 description uses a specific verb and resource ('Validate OpenSCAD parameters') and narrows the scope to material design limits on values like wall thickness and hole diameter. That implicitly separates it from siblings such as validate_openscad_code or analyze_scad_code, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Catches issues before compilation and printing' implies the workflow position (pre-compile, pre-print), which is useful. However, it never states when to prefer this over validate_openscad_code, analyze_scad_code, or compile_scad, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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