ShotPulled

Log maintenance

log_maintenance

Log a cleaning or maintenance job against a piece of equipment. A task that takes the thing apart opens a calibration epoch, and every recipe locked before it is read through that epoch's offset — so record the offset here if you counted the clicks while reassembling, which is the one moment anybody actually knows it. Read the available tasks, their intervals and their due state from list_grinders.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Optional — what you did, and anything that surprised you
`task`	Yes	Which maintenance job was performed
`details`	No	Fields specific to this task. Which ones a task takes is published as details_fields in the task catalog on list_grinders; a burr clean takes none
`evidence`	No	One line recording what the measurement rested on, e.g. "Counted 6 clicks coarser at reassembly."
`equipment_id`	Yes	The ID of that piece of equipment
`offset_value`	No	The correction, if you measured it now: clicks to ADD to a pre-clean reading to get the same grind today, signed along the collar's own number direction. Omit it and the epoch stays unmeasured, which is a state the app shows rather than a zero it assumes
`performed_at`	No	When it was done (ISO 8601 or YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS, UTC). Defaults to now; backdating is fine
`disturbs_zero`	No	Whether this job disturbed the reference the stored numbers are read against — for a burr clean, whether the burrs actually came out. Defaults to the task's own answer; send 0 for a wipe-down that left the collar alone
`offset_source`	No	How the offset was arrived at: pull (a reference shot), counted (clicks counted at reassembly), typed (asserted directly)
`equipment_kind`	Yes	Which kind of equipment this job was done on

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entry`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`entry_id`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

It discloses the non-obvious calibration-epoch side effect: taking the thing apart opens an epoch, and locked recipes are read through that epoch's offset. It also explains why the offset should be captured at reassembly, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations (all false) cannot supply.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three dense sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, epoch/offset behavior, and the authoritative source for task data. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with an output schema and enums, the description covers the non-obvious domain behavior and points to the dynamic task catalog. It does not mention what the response contains or how to choose between this and set_maintenance_offset, but the output schema and parameter docs close the former gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents every parameter in detail (100% coverage), so the description's baseline is 3. It earns an extra point by explaining the offset_value semantics in domain terms — 'if you counted the clicks while reassembling, which is the one moment anybody actually knows it' — and by pointing to list_grinders for task-specific details_fields.

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 uses a direct verb and object — 'Log a cleaning or maintenance job against a piece of equipment' — so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as set_maintenance_offset, which covers part of the same domain and could be invoked instead.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It tells the agent where to discover valid tasks and due states ('Read the available tasks, their intervals and their due state from list_grinders') and gives a concrete trigger for including the offset. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use this tool or comparing it to set_maintenance_offset.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ShotPulled tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?