list_machinesList machines registered for the account, with status filter. The id on each row is the number this account knows that record by, counting from 1 — safe to show, and what other tools expect back.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status: current, archived, or all. Defaults to current. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| machines | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only and non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about the 'id' field: it is account-relative, safe to display, and expected by other tools. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies an important operational contract.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with the primary action stated first. The additional sentence about 'id' semantics earns its place by conveying a subtle and important detail that agents need for correct downstream calls.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with a single optional parameter, rich annotations, an output schema, and a clear account-scoped resource, the description covers everything needed. It explains the filtering behavior and the meaning of the returned identifiers, leaving no critical gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'status' parameter fully documented via enum and default. The description only mentions 'with status filter' without adding new semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('machines registered for the account'), and includes the status filter. This unambiguously differentiates it from the many other list_* siblings such as list_beans or list_grinders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on what is listed (machines registered for the account) and how filtering works, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For a simple resource-specific listing tool, this context is generally sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource or action: register_* and list_* are separated by entity, shot tools are split into log/update/delete/diagnose, and the two diagnose variants are explicitly differentiated by dry-run vs. logged evaluation. There is no meaningful overlap that would make an agent choose the wrong tool if it reads the descriptions.
The vast majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: register_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, log_*, get_*. The only deviations are noun-first compound names like grinder_math and kb_changelog, which are still readable and do not break the overall predictability.
At 34 tools, this server exceeds the 25+ threshold where the interface becomes heavy for an agent to navigate. Many of the tools are simple register_/List_ pairs across seven entity types, which inflates the surface area even though each individual tool is understandable.
Core workflows are well covered: logging, updating, deleting, and diagnosing shots; maintaining equipment; and navigating machine state. However, there are notable lifecycle gaps such as no way to list or delete registered programs, no update/delete operations for most equipment types, and no recipe deletion or unlock, which can leave an agent stuck after certain user requests.