ShotPulled

Register a grinder

register_grinder

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The name/model of the grinder, e.g. Kinu M47
`notes`	No	Additional notes
`photo`	No	Photo path or URL
`archived`	No	1 if archived, 0 if active
`burr_type`	Yes
`max_value`	No	Optional travel max bounds
`min_value`	No	Optional travel min bounds
`motor_type`	Yes
`nominal_step`	Yes	Smallest adjustment increment (e.g. 1 click or 0.1collar units)
`setting_scheme`	Yes	Collar mark style: single clicks or compound (rotation.number.clicks)
`components_spec`	No	JSON mapping string representing compound adjustment math
`microns_per_step`	No	Optional mechanical burr travel microns per nominal step
`direction_convention`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`grinder_id`	Yes

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations only say the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive; they don't convey side effects. The description adds only that registration includes the dial-settings scheme; it does not disclose behavior on duplicate names, required initial state, or whether re-registration is allowed.

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?

One sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource; every word adds information. It is appropriately brief even though other dimensions note missing context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 13-parameter write operation, one purpose sentence is thin. It lacks usage guidance, duplicate/idempotency behavior, required-field emphasis, and relationship to list_grinders or set_grinder_position, despite the output schema and annotations covering only some gaps.

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?

With 77% schema description coverage, the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds helpful mapping for motor_type ('manual or electric') and setting_scheme ('dial settings scheme'), but leaves direction_convention and burr_type semantics unexplained at the tool level.

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?

States a specific action ('Register') and resource ('grinder'), and adds scope ('manual or electric') and content ('dial settings scheme'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_grinders and set_grinder_position.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance about when to register vs use related tools. An agent can infer that registration is for adding a new grinder, but the description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, and there are many sibling registration tools.

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

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a clearly distinct resource and action, and the list/register/update/set tool families are easy to tell apart. The closest pair is diagnose_preview and diagnose_shot, which are well-described but similar enough in name that an agent could select the wrong one.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_beans, register_grinder, update_shot, set_active). Minor exceptions like grinder_math and kb_changelog lack the imperative verb prefix, but they are readable and do not create real confusion.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is above the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even though the domain is fairly rich. The many parallel list_* and register_* tools for beans, grinders, machines, scales, waters, programs, and recipes could plausibly be consolidated or trimmed without losing core capability.

Completeness3/5

The core shot lifecycle is well covered: log, update, delete, diagnose, and list shots, plus bean registration and maintenance tracking. However, most registered entities lack update/delete tools, and get_rule has no corresponding list_rules tool, leaving some obvious workflow gaps that agents must work around.

Resources

Need Help?