list_scalesList registered scales for the account. 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 (unarchived), archived, or all. Defaults to current. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scales | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: ids are per-account sequential numbers starting at 1, are safe to display, and are the values other tools expect as inputs.
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?
Two concise sentences deliver the core function, scope, and ID semantics without wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the important ID behavior is added in the second sentence.
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 tool with one optional documented parameter, full annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is listed, the account scope, and the critical ID semantics that other tools depend on, so nothing essential is missing.
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%, and the single `status` parameter already has a clear enum and explanation. The description does not add new meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List registered scales for the account', immediately distinguishing it from the other list_* siblings. The added detail about the id field clarifies exactly what kind of entities are returned and how they are identified.
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: this is for listing scales registered to the account, and the note that the id is 'what other tools expect back' signals when an agent should call this tool, i.e., to obtain IDs before using other tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with sibling list tools.
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.